THE INDUSTRIAL WORLD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19760, 10 April 1926, Page 20

THE INDUSTRIAL WORLD

NEWS AND NOTES.

By J. T. Paul.

THE EIGHT-HOUR DAY AND TECHNICAL PROGRESS. Professor Edgard Milhaud, writing in the International Labour Review on whether the policy of the eight-hour day has been successful, states: "The scientific researches concerning labour instituted in various countries in view of the grave wartime and post-war economic problems, and the public discussion aroused by the question of the reduction of the working day have led both theorists and practical workers to one conclusion —-namely, that with tew exceptions, production can only be maintained, after a considerable reduction in hours, by the combined action of greater intensity of work and of technical improvements. To expect the increased productivity of the workers to make up entirely for a reduction in hours is, it is felt, to mistake the real economic significance and scope of that reduction, and in particular, of the eight-hour day. “The view is gaining ground that the value of this reform, from the point of view of output, consists in the fact that it stimulates energy on the part of the workers and initiative on that of the employers. It thus serves a double purpose, contributing towards the progress of the human agent and his productivity and also towards that of equipment and organisation.” LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND. On May 8 the State elections 'will be held in Queensland. Though the announcement has just been made the parties are already marshalling their forces. Labour s official organ says: “Eleven years ago, when Labour assumed office, the cost of living in Queensland was higher than that of any other State, the workers were ’ the lowest paid of all Australian workers, and they worked the longest hours, under the worst possible conditions. “To-day, as a result of the common-sensed application of Labour’s policy and programme to the economic life of the community, wages are not only higher than those paid in every other State, but the hours of labour ax - e fewer, the cost of living is lower, and the conditions of work are infinitely better than those injoyed by toilers less fortunately situated.’ “It only needs a few moments contemplation oS what has been gained to convince even the most inert of the industrial and economic tragedies which would follow the almost inconceivable defeat of Labour, because, in spite of all the make-believe and misrepresentation of our opponents, there are only two parties, and only one really great and important issue in this, as in every other election in which Labour is engaged. IDE \L INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSHIPS.

“In the long run (says Dr Baillie, vicechancellor of Leeds University) the economic point of view is derivative froin a more fundamental principle—what one migl call the eth .1 or moral point of view. The relation of employer to employee, singly or in the mass, is essentially a moral one. and nothing else in principle whatsoever.” , . . “The vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds examined with absolute impartiality the difficulties .which exist in the relationship of employer and employed,” says the Yorkshire Post in a comment on Dr Baillie’s remarks quoted above, and adds: “He laid emphasis on the fact that the relationship is not entirely economic, but contains a moral or ethical element which lifts it into a higher region. “This certainly should be recognised by all who profess and call themselves Christians. To deny it is to render invalid all objections to slavery. Obviously if contracts of service between one human being and another are to rest purely on economic considerations, then it follows there can be no more objection to one man acquiring those rights of service over another by purchase than there is to his gaining them by hire. - , . “That is the logical result of applying to this relationship the ordinary conditions under which inanimate property of any sort is dealt with. A conception of this kind would, of course, bring us back to the law of the jungle. “We can only get away from it by recognising that we are all of ns —whether employers or employed, or the very common combination of both —primarily human beings, with all the infinite diversity of gifts, ambitions, physical and mental powers, influences of environment, and conof life that any of us can see by talting a glance around his own acquaintances. “When all these factors have been duly appraised there remains the inner self of each man and woman, which can only he dimly visualised. If an employer engages a workman to do a certain task he is not only employing that man’s skill, hut he is also taking up a portion of his limited span of life, and the knowledge not only that all men are mortal, hut that there will in all probability arrive a period when the bodily powers are failing, and when hard work will not be the joy that it was in youth, keeps before the man an ever-present fear of what will happen to him and to his family in the days to come. “The ideal ethical relationship between employer and employed will take this into account.” AMERICIAN MINERS’ STRIKE. Writing in the New Leader Eugene V. Debs says of the five-months’ miners’ strike and its settlement: — Let us see for a moment what the strike consisted of and what the miners got out of it. The number of strikers was estimated at 158,000, who, with their families, aggregated three-quarters of a million people. The daily loss in wages -as estimated at £230,000. The total loss in wages was estimated at approximately £18,000,000. Now what did the miners actually get out of this vast loss in wages, this enormous waste of time and the unimaginable suffering and wretchedness to which they were subjected during all those weary and agonising days? They struck for a 10 per cent, increase in wages, and they received no increase at all. They struck for the check-off, and it was denied them. The one claim to which they are entitled is the right to collective bargaining, and they had that before. And this amounts to practically nothing, for, after all, the right to collective bargaining is merely the right to ask the bosses for something which they may or may not grant, and not infrequently the right of collective bargaining amounts to the right of collective starvation So that the miners in the anthracite after all their grim fortitude and their heroic sacrifice, are just where they were before. All their deprivations, misery, and suffering have been in vain, so far as any tangible result is concerned. The miners can now go back into the pits to begin over again the weary and hopeless round until the next strike gives them an opportunity to repeat their tragicexperience. For a period of five years they are now tied to the mines during which they may not strike, but have the privilege once each year of asking the bosses for a trifle more than is being allowed them. The whole strike from the day it was declared played in to the hands of the operators, and the strikers were foredoomed to defeat and disaster. The strike came at the precise time it was wanted by the operators, and they had long been preparing for it, and in the long run the strike not only will have cost them nothing, but will have strengthened their position and fortified their mastery in the anthracite. The operators have triumphed, and there is no use of the miners trying to deceive themselves or allowing themselves to be deceived by the capitalist press or their own leaders.