Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. FRIDAY, JANUARY 3, 1947 LIVING STANDARDS MUST BE EARNED

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 68, 3 January 1947, Page 4

Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. FRIDAY, JANUARY 3, 1947 LIVING STANDARDS MUST BE EARNED

IT is not too early in the New Year to emphasise the tendency of New Zealanders to demand more and more and to give less and less. This problem, a very human one, of which we have a shining example on the waterfront at Auckland today, is one which has exercised the concern of the Government over past years. Before the election propaganda was loosened upon the public, members of the Cabinet were openly expressing their thoughts in this connection. It is good to note that the Federation of Labour- is strongly supporting the Prime Minister in his recent ultimatum to the Watersiders Union. Late last year, the Hon. R. Semple (Minister of Works) discussed this tendency in relation to the return to peacetime conditions of employment. The civilian as well as the soldier, he pointed out, was faced with the task of settling down. “The shopkeeper has found that he can sell more than he can obtain; the doctor has had more patients than he can attend to; the worker’s services have been so much in demand that his employer has been forced to retain him whether or not he was efficient; and the inefficient employee has survived by reason of an abnormal demand for whatever services he may have rendered.” Now that the war was over, said the Minister, the inefficient man—worker or employer—would “gradually or even suddenly” find his own level; and if he was content to remain inefficient, in the belief that the Government’s benevolent legislation would sustain him, he would jeopardise not only the social services but the country’s high living standards. In short —and here Mr Semple reached the fundamental truth—“we cannot consume what we do not produce.” Every advance which the Dominion has made during the last io years depends on a corresponding increase in production. The demand that the five-day week should be universal is a manifestation of the widespread desire to take things easily. “I believe that 40 hours a week in certain of occupations is any amount,” said Mr Nash, “but to imagine that you can all have a 40-hour week in five days is just living in a fool’s paradise . . . You cannot close down tramcars, trains, electricity, gas and other vital services merely to have a five-day week. In most industries 40 hours a week is quite enough, provided people are sensible and understand that it must be spread a little.” This is a reasonable viewpoint, and it might have been expressed more forcibly at the time the legislation extending the application of the five-day, 40-hour week was passed. With no guidance from the Government how far the shorter working week is to be extended, workers throughout the country are clamouring for more and in some cases defying the law and taking it. Mr Nash discussed the bakers’ dispute to the extent of saying that “we ought to be able to have bread on seven days of the week . . . we cannot live without bread.” But he must be well aware of the increasing difficulty of giving to some sections of the workers benefits which cannot be given to other sections. What we wonder will be the reaction of workers during the coming year to the hours of work which are economically required of them in order to assure a permanent share of our enlarged prosperity. Already we understand claims are being prepared for a thirtyfive hour week! It can only be hoped that the Federation, which has taken up a rational view of the present hold up, will continue to back up the reasonable attitude, which after all is the desirable viewpoint of the country as a whole.