The Southland Times SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1941. War Measures for Industry?

Southland Times, Issue 24599, 22 November 1941, Page 6

The Southland Times SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1941. War Measures for Industry?

WHEN THE Director of National VV Service, Mr J. S. Hunter, described to the conference of the Manufacturers’ Federation the main points of a scheme now being considered for the better use of man power, he emphasized that his statements did not represent Government policy. But the Minister of Labour, speaking later, said that “he thought Mr Hunter had interpreted Government policy 100 pel’ cent.” This was interesting. All the points mentioned in the speech were of the utmost importance. The extension of hours in industry, a wider use of women and the redistribution of labour to guarantee the maintenance of essential production are some of the questions which will have to be faced before it can be said that the country’s industrial resources are being fully mobilized. There is, indeed, no cause for pride in the fact that they are only now being discussed as political realities, although total warfare has been raging for more than two years, and New Zealand troops are in battle for the third time. Admittedly, events move more slowly on the home front; it is not easy to overcome mass inertia and sectional prejudice while the physical shocks of war are not being felt inside the country. But the requirements of the Army are beginning to affect industrial output, and in the neat' future these demands will be still heavier. Mr Hunter visualized a policy which will cover the fundamental problems; and Mr Webb, endorsing his statements, added significantly that “it was the idea of the Government to eliminate new awards while protecting the workers’ interests. It was useless to fix prices, then raise wages.” Nothing could be truer. One of the weaknesses of the Government’s position has been its reluctance to define and control a definite wage policy, which means that while it gives lip-service to stabilization the trade unions continue to obtain increases from the Arbitration Court. The same attitude could be detected in a comparison between Mr Webb’s endorsement of Mr Hunter’s statements and the tone of his own speech. “I would not hesitate,” he said, “to bring in legislation extending hours, but it is not necessary, as power is given under the war regulations. If an industry wants to extend hours it can make representations to the Industrial Emergency Council. It is no use growling. You have the machinery there; make use of it.” Apparently the Minister wanted it to be understood that he approved the emergency control of industry, but had no desire to approve the extension of hours by any means except the present cumbersome and unsatisfactory machinery. First Things First

Under the system hinted at by Mr Hunter the Government would exercise an arbitrary control over private enterprise, even to the point of ordering specific industries to cease production, or to use their equipment for different purposes. It would also be able to control the flow of labour, in some cases suspending the right of workers to change their employment. If such measures become necessary they could be justified only as the means of utilizing available plant to the best possible advantage. Could they be said to be necessary while the industrial working week remains substantially as it was before the war? Mr Webb invited employers to apply to the Industrial Emergency Council. But the present method of hearing evidence and forming judgments on particular cases implies the continuance of the old tug-of-war between employing and union interests. Moreover —and this is important—it places the emphasis in the wrong place, favouring a negative psychological approach. Employers and workers who wish to increase their efforts must now ask permission to do so, and they cannot be sure of getting it. The function of the council should be turned right side upwards. Instead of asking appellants to show cause why they should be permitted to work longer hours, it should ask for good reasons why they should not be compelled to do so. A blanket increase might cause injustice and superfluous effort; but if the Industrial Emergency Council were empowered to hear appeals against an extension, instead of for it, the effect on production would be immediate and beneficial. Moreover, the task of tapering off unessential industries would be greatly simplified, or at least become justifiable. “This is no time to fool about,” said Mr Webb, embracing employers and trade unions in an indirect admonition. But politicians should also strive to face the realities of war time. The man-power problem is easy to define, and remedies have already been suggested. Wages and prices must be stabilized as far as is possible within a war economy; production must be increased; and wasteful effort must be eliminated. The first steps towards these improvements are sufficiently obvious, and until they are taken it would be foolish to establish an elaborate system of control. Some weeks ago the Engine Drivers’ Industrial Union lodged in the Arbitration Court an application for an increase in wages which, if granted, will in- - evitably lead to a further general increase. If the Government believes that wages should be stabilized it should say so at once and take upon itself the responsibility for wage control during the war. Similarly, it should reverse the function of the Industrial Emergency Council and introduce a more realistic scale of working hours. These two elementary measures would check the price spiral and ease the acuter problems of man power. Thereafter it should be possible to proceed gradually, and without serious dislocations, to the more ambitious programme outlined by Mr Hunter. But until those first steps have been taken the Government cannot expect to have the confidence of the people while it turns to extreme measures of control. Equality of sacrifice is still only a slogan that awaits its fulfilment in action.