SHORTER WORKING WEEK

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 27 March 1936, Page 7

SHORTER WORKING WEEK

(To the Editor) Sir,—“lkona Mali” has again taken lip much of your space to express his antagonism to this League and to deal with a letter which lie says your readers will have consigned-to the scrap heap. Surely if this is so he need not have taken the trobule ? He assumes that tho League Is opposed to the shorter week. He is wrong. He contends that. a shorter week is inevitable. We think this is correct and have never written any thing which indicates the contrary. The points we made were quite clear and have not been met by the correspondent. May we repeat them? (1) While some trades have introduced the 40-hour week, theie . are others which cannot do so unless it is adopted by competitor countries. (2) That International Conferences have been unable to agree to a common policy and do not even agree as to whether the reform would involve [ess wages or could be realised without any reduction. (3) That after 16 years since the 48liour week was affirmed by an International Conference, only 14 states out of 50 have ratified the agreement. Therefore the prospect of universal agreement on 40 hours is not hopeful. . (4) The main question to decide is whether local industry on a 40-hour week can meet the competition of those who retain the longer week. This is (we said) rightly recognised by the Government. So long as you can spare the space required for “Ikona Mali’s” abuse, of the League and liis laboured sarcasm, he is welcome to exploit is so far_as we are concerned. But it is not conducive to reasoned discussion. In the present case we set out certain points for consideration. The correspondent “replies” by a letter of over half a column. The first two inches is mere abuse, followed by halt a column of figures, facts, and quotations which are familiar to any one who reads, and irrelevant to the points dealt with. After all this irrelevant matter we note that his views on the question under discussion will not be given till a future issue. These we look for with Interest. The letter under reply is merely a hit at his opponent and and not argument. Pure waste of effort and space,—We are, etc., N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE. Wellington, 26tli March.