WORKING WEEK.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20281, 16 April 1934, Page 5

WORKING WEEK.

Proposed Extension Not Favoured. JUDGES’ OPINIONS. (Special to the “ Star.”) SYDNEY, April 3. Our Industrial Commission has already decided against the proposal of the employers to increase the working week in this State from forty-four to forty-eight hours; and this week the Full Bench gave its reason for its determination. The president states that when the Judges reached their decision they were “ impressed with the fact that almost throughout the civilised world there was * a widespread belief among economists, politicians and business men that it was desirable to assist in ove r coming the vast amount of unemployment prevalent almost everywhere, that hours of employment should be decreased and standards of forty, thirtysix, and even thirty hours we_re advocated as well as forty-four.** “ Would be Harmful.” Under these circumstances and especially as New South Wales was already working on the forty-four hours’ basis, the Judges felt that “ the declaration of a forty-eight hours' standard would be harmful rather than helpful in solving the problem of unemployment, and would be turning back on the path of enlightened development toward shorter working hours, which for years had been going on in New South Wales and other civilised countries.” As regards the advocacy of a fortv eight hours’ week, the spokesmen of the employers claimed that such an increase would decrease the sel’ing price of goods and services, and thus bring about increased general consumption and also a decrease in the number of the unemployed..

The Commissioners regard the possible fall in prices and increase in consumption as problematical; but they point out that in their opinion, ” it can be said with certainty that if a fortyeight hours’ week were adopted in this State a very large number of employees now in work would be thrown upon the labour market, and thus the unemployment problem wojjld be at once intensified and the charge on the communitv materially increased”; an i they are by no means prepared to be parties to any such policy. On the other hand, they are not disposed to accept off-hand the assurance of the representatives of the union that a reduction in working hours would tend to improve or even to maintain the average rate of production per wage-earner. In regard to the claim that New South Wales has been heavily handicapped by her short working week in competition with other States, the Commissioners say emphatically that “ it has not been established that, in any single industry exposed to interstate -competition, the injurious consequences which it was asserted flowed from the difference in hours had resulted in fact, either to the extent claimed, or to any extent.” This is a severe reproof to certain extremist employers, and the Judges are no less adverse to the primary producers who favour the forty-eight hours’ week on the plea that it would reduce their costs of production. The Commissioners point out that those producers working under the greatest disadvantages may be handicapped by poor soil, their own inefficiency, the high price that they paid for land, and high interest for borrowed money. ‘‘lt must be obvious that nothing under their existing circumstances could turn these farmers into economic wheat producers; and the introduction of longer working hours into industry generally could not save them.*’ On the whole, the *- e port is rational, well-balanced and impartial, and the representatives of Labour are justified in regarding it as definitely favourable to the wage-earner.