THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1936. THE FORTY-HOUR WEEK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22911, 19 June 1936, Page 12

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1936. THE FORTY-HOUR WEEK

It is to be hoped that, when applications for exemption from the fortyhour week provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act come before the Arbitration Court, the fears which have been expressed that the court possesses no discretionary powers will be proved ill-founded. Two prominent representatives of manufacturers’ organisations, Messrs A. E. Mander and A. W. Nisbct, declare that they have come to the conclusion, as the result of discussions with the Minister of Labour, that the Government does not intend that applications for exemption shall be granted oth«r than in very exceptional cases, and that the mere fact that costs of production will be increased will almost certainly not be considered of itself a sufficient ground for granting exemption. It is apparent that many industries will be able to advance strong arguments either for exemption from, or for postponement of the operation of, the forty-hour week provisions, and a court that deals with employers’ applications with absolute impartiality must be entirely free to interpret the facts as they are presented to it. The Act says, in effect, that an order can be made now for the commencement of the forty-hour week, in a particular industry, on September 1. But it is also explicitly laid down that exemption may be granted if it is the opinion of the court, after hearing representatives of the employers and the workers concerned, that it would be impracticable to carry on efficiently any industry so limited with regard to hours. The reasonable inference is that employers are not to be coerced by the Government, through the court. If the word “ efficiently ” has any meaning at all in its context it must have an important relation to the vital question of costs. The New Zealand manufacturers have clearly indicated to the Government their willingness to co-operate in the task of improving conditions for workers, provided they are not expected to expose their industry, in so doing, to the risk of serious loss. Indeed, the gloomy views expressed at Geneva by the president of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation are by no means endorsed by manufacturers as a whole, who are perfectly willing to give the more-money-for-lcss-work experiment a trial if adequate assurances are given that they will receive protection from the inevitable consequences of that policy. Labour legislators still prefer to ignore the “ bogey ” of increased costs. Yet the simple fact remains that costs and prices must I'cflcct any arbitrary movement simultaneously to reduce hours of work and lift wages. The Financial Times comments that the Minister of Labour, in deducing—from Year Book sources —that the shorter week will not increase the cost of production by more than 1.8 per cent., overlooks several plain facts.

The first is that the _shorter hours cannot be considered apart from the general policy of wage increase, the second is that to take the wages paid in factories as a basis for calculation is to disregard the chain nature of modern production._ The factory works witli raw materials, say, castiron. The cost of production of this cast-iron has been increased by higher wages and a shorter week for all who arc engaged in bringing the pig-iron into the country. The factory thus has to pay more for its materials and has its operating costs further raised by the ten per cent, wage restorations, by (lie stricter labour laws which demand that journeymen shall be employed where it is possible, and also —if it is on an hourly basis—by the fact that the new legislation compels payment of workers for eight statutory - holidays.

After making the point that the charges for marketing a product have also to be considered in relation to costs, the Financial Times suggests that there are overseas trade issues to be considered. There are. It is to be presumed that the Government has the tariff in mind when it talks of protecting the manufacturer from the threat of external competition, ns a consequence of an increase in the pTice level for locally-manufactured goods. The Minister of Marketing is likely to find himself on the horns of a dilemma when he reaches London in search of new marketing agreements. He hopes to be able to say to the British Government, “You take our £15,000,000 worth of butter . . . and we will use the money in Great Britain for buying what we want.” How, in the circumstances, .can there he effective recourse to the tariff to shield the New Zealand manufacturer from the dangers to which he is to be exposed?