SHORTER WORKING HOURS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22349, 21 February 1936, Page 15

SHORTER WORKING HOURS

Sir, —All the arguments for and against the shorter working week seem to be based 011 the present condition ol' industry and social welfare. But our new Government has promised us n universal superannuation or pension scheme, and it appears to me that a shortening of the years of labour would be of greater benefit to all concerned than a shorter week. It is generally admitted that no country can employ all the available labour on productive work without lowering the scale of wages and forcing their surplus output on other countries. Therefore, it would be better to give the younger people a greater opportunity to prove their worth by relieving the labour market of the old and middle-aged, and providing the latter with a sufficient amount to enable them to live comfortably for the re.st of their lives. Surely the workers, whether in town or country, would then recognise the ultimate benefit they would derive from making the utmost use of the mechanical appliances when they have the prospect of an assured income at the retiring age. Oi.d Colonist.

Sir, —Mr. J. Johnstone states that "the official figures just published showthat our volume of output per head for the year ending March last was 5.4 per cent less than that of 35 years ago." What are these "official figures?" Will Mr. Johnstone please tell us where he got them from ? The 1936 year book gives the index number of "volume ot production per head " as 1037 in 1900-01, and 1019 in 1933-34: which amounts to a decrease during that period of 1.7 per cent, not 5.4 per cent. 1900-01 is an unusually high year. The increase last vear as compared with 1917-18, for instance, is about thirty per cent. There are other interesting comparisons to be made. For example, the average index-figure of volume of production per head for the pre-slump years 1924-29 was 935, whilst that for 'the slump years 1930-34 was 986 —an increase of 5.4 per cent. 'lhese figures are no guide to relative prosperity, of course, because they do not take into account the exchange value of this production, the greater part of which is bartered for imported goods on terms that are probably hundreds per cent better than those of 1900. W .C.K.

Sir, —The letter of the Hon. T. Bloodworth, which appeared in the Hf.ralu of February 18, says, "When 'some of us' suggest that the necessary work should be spread a little more evenly among those able to do it by means of a general reduction of hours, we are told that industries cannot stand the strain, or they work longer hours in Japan, or the farmers will be ruined." The 'some of us' also demand that the number of hours worked weekly shall be reduced from 44 to 40 without an.\ corresponding reduction in the weekly wage. The 'general' reduction of hours they speak of leaves out the immense number of workers connected with agriculture. Not one penny of the great addition to the wages bill is to be at the expense of the trade unionists though thev get all the benefit, if. as Mr. Bloodworth's letter implies—the adoption of the 40-hour week would result in largely reducing the number of unemployed —then let the trade unionists be generous enough to agree to a corresponding decfease in their wages, and let their—at present—unemployed fellow-workmen come in and share the work with them. Till they do that, and show more desire that the non-unionist workers in the community shall share in the benefit of the proposed reduction in hours, the rest of the community will continue to view this demand as a selfish one and not as one for the general good of New Zealand. J. Thornes.

Sir, —We have heard a lot lately in regard to shorter working hours, but nothing very definite as to the sections of the community to whom any changes are to apply. There has been agitation for a 40-hour week for many years long before any unemployment question arose. The eight-hour day or 44-hour week has been general lor many years among most sections of the community and all time worked in excess has been paid ae overtime. 1 wonder if our politicians and the general public are aware that there is one section of workers who are working. between 70 and 80 hours a week regularly, where the remuneration is quite inadequate and overtime pay unknown, yet not a word is heard in protest. Those who have cause to come in contact with these workers have nothing but the highest praise for their skill, patience and consideration, and many there are who owe their lives to their efforts and many have had their last hours brightened by a cheerful word or a smile given, perhaps at the end of a 12, and sometimes a 14-hour duty. Surely something can be done to lighten the hours of duty of the members of this most noble and necessary section of the community, the followers of Florence Nightingale —our hospital nurses. Reasonable Hours For All.