SHORTER WORKING WEEK

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 31 March 1936, Page 7

SHORTER WORKING WEEK

(To the Editor) Sir.—The Welfare League jisk why, in view of my opinion of their contribution. I took the trouble to reply. The answer is the same as given me once by a rural constable. He knew there was nobody about that he could “lock up” but he liked to be seen on his heat. If he didn’t keep showing up, some day “sumrnat” might happen. The League leave much to say about the space and effort I waste in abuse and laboured sarcasm. The term “abuse,” Sir, is surely an exaggeration. This cry-baby attitude of the League reminds me of the boy who went howling to the teacher because the. other boys called him “fathead.” In a consoling reprimand the teacher told him not to worry—there was nothing in it. If’ they consider my letters abusive, I would not give much for their welfare when they get the kicks that are coming to them. Personally, I do not care much for # a contest- whom the combatants waltz about the ring as shy at first as a pair of lovers and then rush in and embrace each other. Should an accidental blow be struck, for the offender to say apologetically, “Pardon my glovo!” would to my mind be sufficient grounds for declaring it “no contest.” This etiquette is all right for the-drawing-room, where no doubt the members of the Welfare Lpague spend a lot of their time, but it is out bf A place in the'rough" and tumble strife of the political arena. Myself, I like to use a straight left, but I admit F do not stick to the ortiiodox style, and conic to light now and again with a backhander that doesn’t hurt much hut pleases the crowd and “rattles” my opponent. As he cannot claim a foul lie argues that the “smack” was “irrelevant” which makes the crowd laugh all the more. My excuse for this rather lengthly introduction is that it may be effective in '• eliminating a. constant complaint. In practically all the League replies they claim they are being abused. It would make the debate far more interesting if they cut this out and stood up to it. They wont, find me squaliiig if they make the matches “all in” affairs, and this type of entertainment seems to have captured the public fancy. , ; As for my sarcasm being laboured the League are entirely wrong. It is quite spontaneous any my only effort is in applying the brake. The remainder of my letter they say is nothing but figures, facts (thanks) and quotations. If this is also a fault I would refer them to their own contribution and they will see who started it. “Anti-League, another of the Welfare’s critics in your columns said that the League, have never been guilty of holding political convictions of any description but then ambition’ was to fawn at the feet ot those in power, he they Tory or rebel. Though the League' have now climbed down*and tell me they arc not opposed to a 40-hour week and believe with me that an even shorter working week is inevitable, “Anti-League’s” opinion warns me against extending the ohve branch. Underneath the coat of Jamba wool I see the sixteen vear old won. t hat has all its life been “baying with hideous howl” at all social reformers. Have the League, like Saul, seen, the light, or are they fawning at the fe'et ot a Party they never expected to see in. power? They have always looked oil j Labour as their charwoman. Are they flirting with her now because she has come into money? ‘ ~ And now for what is so dear to the heart of tlio Welfare League, a letter reasoned discussion. They now agree the shorter week is inevitable. As notnintr inevitable can be averted, why worry? Let us accept the inevitable and "not concern ourselves w'th v-Imo other countries do. Oil the Leagues own showing, sixteen years after vhe 48 hour week was affirmed by an international Conference, only 14 states out of 56 ratified the agreement, these States have survßed in spite ot the 4B competitor countries holding out. bo ihere is nothing to stop this history bcinrr repeated, and the difficulty of universal ■ reform hardly comes into the argument. . . • The League say the mam question to decide is, whether on a 9 per cent, increase in wages cost we can compete with countries . remaining on the longer week. It would he. just as logical to say that to compete with Eastern countries all. our. workers would have to live ■ in bamboo huts and only cat rice Or, if we were, competing with the labour of African natives they would live in kraals and feed on meahe-pap. International conferences, the League say,' have been unable to agree to a common policy, and do not even agree as to whether the reform would nivotv-o less wages or could be realised without any reduction. This is just the spit of help we get from these expensive conferences. Tf the doctors, cant help ns, and have given us up for lost, let, us try home remedies. . . Economists and conferences with .their j orthodoxies can do nothing, let b can • nrjvc the League I lie solution ot the world’s problems in one word: Money. 'lbc country that first takes control ot its currency becomes the richest country in the, world. As oilier countries follow suit they will be 'correspondingly

rich. Markets, instead of being a vital problem will be a secondary consideration, for this reason. Our consumers will have money to buy what he produce. Tliev will also have in one v to buy the goods manufactured in Brittain, up to the amount of goods Britain buys from us. Minus our debt contributions, until we are no longer under this obligation. Take the position today ! Britain wants to sell us cotton goods, machinery, chemicals, etc. She would have a. market at home for a lot of these goods. Only 20 million of her people have only a pound a week and less to live on so they , cannot buy the goods they can so easilv create. _ We cannot buy them from Britain, either, because we are in the same boat. As we cannot buy our own goods wo go without and trv to sell them to Britain.. Obviously then, there is no market, for markets mean money—or should T sav, having the Welfare League in mind, who only have eves for this kind of argument, people with money to spend. Markets have 'languished for want of money. Mr Savage has promised to remedy this defect. ITe is being onposed by two classes—criminals, and fools.—l am, etc.. IKON A MALT. Nelson, 28th March.