40-HOUR WEEK

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIX, 8 February 1936, Page 5

40-HOUR WEEK

EMPLOYERS’ VIEWS "COULD NOT STAND COST” Tlie employers' views on the proposed 4C-hour week are expressed in the following statement issued by the president of tbo Auckland Provincial Employers’ Association, Mr J. S. Dawes : “Regarding the 40-hour week, the issue should be clearly understood. The proposal, as we understand it in accordance with the Government’s original statement, was not merely a reduction of the working week from 44 hours to 40 hours—-probably cutting out the ball day’s work on Saturday—which in some cases might be arranged, it went further and contemplated the payment of 44-hour wages for 40 hours' work—an increase in wages of over 9 per cent. Now, it must be remembered that it was, in addition, proposed to restore all cuts and bring the monetary wage up to the 1926-30 level, irrespective of tlie decrease of over IS per cent, which has since then been shown in the cost of living, and without taking cognisance of (iic decrease in the earning power of industry. If in addition to this another S per cent, was to be added to wages, the question would have had to be faced as to whether competitive industry could possibly stand the strain. “The Auckland Provincial Employers’ Association has placed itself in touch with a number of representative employers in all branches of industry. The consensus of opinion, so far as we have been able to ascertain it, is that industry could not stand the strain. The 40-hour week would, with few exceptions, materially increase production costs, hamper employers in competition with overseas manufacturers and also in competition locally with those who employ little or no labour, and cause discontinuance or reduction of output in some lines of manufacture. It would not, generally speaking, lead to the employment of more workers, particularly in tlie skilled trades. In some seasonal and other industries it would be quite impracticable. “NOT HOSTILE ATTITUDE” _ “Employers generally are not taking up a hostile attitude to the 40-hour week. It is not a question of like or dislike, merely a question, at the present time, of practicability or impracticability, which they .arc forced by the pressure ot competitive conditions to decide. “If we rely on the assurance of the Government that it- is out to assist and not to injure or destroy industry, wo may assume that there is no probability of a law being passed making a 40-hour week compulsory in ail industries. “The question, however, is inseparably connected with the Arbitration Court, which lias power to fix wages and working hours in all industries covered by awards. While the Court, when fixing wages and hours of work, is bound as at present to take into consideration the ability of each industry to pay, there is probably no cause for alarm. Employers generally are in favour oi more conciliation and less arbitration. Some of tbo larger and more influential sections of labour have persistently favoured the settlement of disputes by negotiation in preference to compulsory arbitration. Our contention is that if the Court is again to be compulsorily invoked as a wage fixing tribunal, such compulsion should be general and apply not to employers only, but to all organised labour. How the Government will reconcile these conflicting claims and interests in its proposed legislation remains to be Keen.”