THE NORTHERN ADVOCATE Registered for transmission through the Post as a Newspaper. FRIDAY MARCH 7, 1947. The 40 – Hour Week

Northern Advocate, 7 March 1947, Page 4

THE NORTHERN ADVOCATE Registered for transmission through the Post as a Newspaper. FRIDAY MARCH 7, 1947. The 40 - Hour Week

Though the dominant political parties in New Zealand have expressed their approval of the 40-hour week, and though there are many arguments to be adduced in favour of a workless Saturday so far as workers are concerned, it is nevertheless a fact that any attempt to give the system universal application is doomed to disappointment. Failure to recognise this fact evidences short-sightedness, which has already been responsible for dislocation of industry and affected seriously the smooth-running of the Dominion at a time when greater production of necessary commodities, rather than greater leisure on the part of the community, should have been the aim of Government and people.

Supporters of a 40-hour week contend that a five-day week does not necessarily mean that no work must be done on Saturday, as payment of overtime ensures the carrying on of essential activities.

That argument has been exploded by the waterside workers, for instance. as they refused to work on Saturday or after five o’clock on any other week-day, even though overtime was paid.

That alleged devotion to the principle of the 40-hour week was responsible for a hold-up cosily to the strikers and the country, and especially to the people of Britain, whose need for food supplies was, and slilL is, vitally urgent. This strike served to stress that however desirable a long week-end may be, it simply cannot be observed by everybody, for some must work in order that others may enjoy themselves. apart altogether from the fact that the life of the country depends upon primary production and allied duties being carried out seven days a week.

There are other activities which must also be observed on at least six days of the week; discontinuance of these activities would immediately raise a howl of protest by those in

a position to tttke full advantage of the 40-hour week of five days. It is all very well to say that payment of overtime for Saturday work, or work after five o'clock on other week-days, provides for the carrying on of all duties required to maintain the industry, trade and commerce of the Dominion.

Overtime pay, it should be remembered, means increased costs of production, which must in the long run be met by the consumers, and therefore should be avoided wherever that is practicable. This suggests that if admitted benefits of a 40-hour week are to be shared by everybody, working hours should be so organised that essential activities might be canned on without interruption and all workers given a fair share of the leisure advantages which a free Saturday provides. If that were done, and reasonable elasticity countenanced, there would be less objection to a system wh,ch inflicts real hardship on many sections of the community, not the least being the housewife, to whom catering at week-ends is, in the majority of cases, a nightmare.

In view of the real facts of the case, it is preposterous for the Attorney-General of New South Wales to tell the Legislative Assembly, as he did last evening, that the 40-hour week has brought Utopia to the people of New Zealand. That, at any rate, is to be gathered from our cabled report of his eulogy of the 40-hour week in New Zealand made during the debate on a bill designed to give the 40-hour week to New South Wales.

Nothing is ever gained by exaggeration, and Mr Martin would hare been well advised if he had mentioned the undoubted difficulties associated with the operation of the 40-hour week in New Zealand, difficulties which must yet be overcome before it can be truthfully said that leisure and devotion to sport and pleasure constitute essential steps to national wellbeing.