THE FORTY-HOUR WEEK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24685, 14 August 1941, Page 5

THE FORTY-HOUR WEEK

to THf EDITOR

Sir,—There is one thingabout the 40. hour week that Mr MaqManus and your, other correspondents fail to comprehend, and that, is, that it was the Government who engineered it, not the workers. The Government could see that there would be a big deficiency in the income from the 44-hour week to meet the expenditure, on the social security vbeheflt, and -to deprive the workers of more of their, hard-earned wages, the Government fought out the 40-hour ■ week—all time .worked over the 40 hours to be paid for’at time and a-half 6r double or treble time. So Mr MacManus and your - other correspondents cart work it out for themselves. , They can get .the millions of hours worked over the 40 and see what the Government ife taking away from the worker at the present lime. Takifor instance, the carpenters working on a Government flaxmill building. They were asked to work a 60-hour week, and to oblige the Government they did. though some did not want the overtime. Well, they were making £9 per 60 hours, and the Government’s tax per week was 18s, But there was still more coming to the Government out of those workers, for their income lax assessment was £4l, and, mind vou; they are asked to pay a tax on the 18s a week the Government took away from them and which they never saw or handled So it is easy to understand Mr Webb and every member of the Government “ hitting the roof ” when anyone says anything’about the 40-hour week. As for social security I rriyself know four who had retired and for the first time voted for Labour .just to get the £3 per week. Poor worker! He will pay dearly for all the Government’s mistakes, and they are not a few, Why, 50 per cent, of the present-day workers will never receive the full superannuation, but they, will pay into it all their life.-— I am, etc., A Toiler. Dunedin. August 13. TO THE EDITOR , Sir, —Having joined in the chorus of conservative claquers, as the caudal appendage. “ Countryman ” carkingly cants about the reasons why the general labourers’ awards do not concede a basic weekly wage, which he puts down to the 40-hour week enactment. But, alas for. this theory, the longer hours once worked in compliance with the conservative code only conceded an hourly wage on construction works when the Nationalists were in office. The murky, melancholy meanderings of “ Matilda ” confute any hope there might be of “Countryman’s." clap-trap showing conciliatory concessions from Conservatives whose city councillors or contractors have not yet conceded improvements, unless compelled to do so by constitutional enactmCTits. In Australia, the Fisher Labour Govern-

ment in 1911. enacted an arbitration plan as part of their new protection proposals, which extended to all unskilled workers at least the minimum basic weekly wage. That wage enactment proved that it was practicable -for general labourers to be paid by the week, and was therefore never altered when Conservatives regained control of the Treasury benches there. General labourers in New Zealand had hoped the Arbitration Act would be amended,to make it mandatory to pay all workers at least a basic weekly wage. Maybe when the Labour Party has placated its political opponents who once voted against them it may remember the lower-paid workers on ah-hourly wage who voted for them and paid towards their election expenses. Until then the hourly workers must live in hope of Labour Party help* especially as your correspondents’ letters'show there is no hope from the Opposition.—l am, etc.,. V • , > , J. E. MacManus. Du'nedin.i Aug. 12. '