THE NEED FOR GREATER PRODUCTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 November 1920, Page 3

THE NEED FOR GREATER PRODUCTION.

A QUESTION OF MANAGEMENT, PLAIN SPEECH TO THE EMPLOYERS. Wherever we turn to-day the sign faces ns of an existent call for more goods, more necessities. The pepole require more houses, fuel, lighting, clot'.es, foodstuffs, and practically all commodities of necessity. The wants cannot be met by mere juggling with wages and prices. You are given higher wages or salaries to meet your wants only to find that you have to pay more and the quantity of goods you get is not increased. We venture to affirm that here in New Zealand tradesmen got more ■ necessities for their families when their wages averaged £3 per week than they do with tliem now averaging .Co or over. Not for a moment do we suggest that they could do with the lower rate now. Our point, and it is most important, is that with the higher rates they do not get the goods. If every man's wage was raised to £lO a day, that of itself would not supply another house to live in, or another ton of coal for domestic purposes. The only way to get more goods is to have more produced. In America, Great Britain. Germany, Italy, and France, men of all classes and all parties, who think, affirm this proposition of "the need for more production." Business men, Labor leaders, Conservatives, Lib' erals, Bolshevists, all together are saying "what is wanted is more goods, more service." AMERICAN LABOR OPINION. Sidney Hillman, president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, said recently in Boston: We cannot evade this question of production. The Amalgamated cannot accept the ordinary rule of commerce, the principle of 'the business man, which is to give as little as possible and take as much as possible. We must take a different attitude and accept responsibility for production. We cannot have sabotage by withholding production; we cannot have loafing; we must.have production and we must recognise our responsibility. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, recently wrote: The trades union movement of America understands fully the necessity for adequate production of the necessities of life. American labor understands, perhaps more fully than do American j statesmen, the needs of the world in this hour, and it is exerting every effort to see that those needs are met with intelligence and with promptness. The question of increased productivity is not a question of putting upon the toilers a j more severe strain; it is a question of vast and fundamental changes in the management of industry; a question of j the elimination nf outworn policies; a j question of the introduction of the very best in machinery and methods of management. In December of last year the American Federation of Labor issued the following in an open letter: — To promote further the production of an adequate supply of the world's needs for use and higher standards of life we urge that there be established co-opera-tion between t,he scientists of industry and the representatives of organised ■workers. BRITISH LABOR OPINION. The Rt, Hon. J. R. dynes, M.P., says: To say there ought to be more people engaged' in production is sound enough. We need better distribution of commodities, and 'there ought to be improvement in a score of other directions But all the evidence in favor of these reforms provides no argument against placing at the disposal of 'the people, in greater quantity the things they want, that greater quantity can come only from increased production, which would benefit employers not nearly so greatly as it would the workers themselves. Other British Labor men, such as Messrs. Barnes, Thomas, Roberts and others have urged the same need for "more production." ■

THE EMPLOYERS' DUTY. Our opinion is that the words of Mr. Gompers that "the question of increased productivity is a question df vast and fundamental changes in the management, of industry" is sound and reasonable. It is a question of "introducing the best in machinery, methods and management " After all the employers are in charge. Can they produce the goods? That is the question. We can hear the gryimblers amongst the employers (there are such amongst the employers as well as amongst the workers): "Oh, well we can produce, if labor would only ." Some of them may never have heard the phrase "a bad employer makes a bad workman " The question is not, can you produce the goods when everything is easy, but can you produce the goods now? In our opinion there is altogether too much of a tendency for employers as well as workers Vo think that they are excused for their neglect by merely blaming others. Looking at our industries. Take farming. In many directions it is not farming with any brains, but mere noil scratching, and we know this to be the opinion of experts. In our secondary industries we find the same habit of "pulling through." The small establishment will, old plant and machinery and the routine methods of many years ago is too much in evidence in many parts of the Dominion. What is urgently called for is a linking up more closely of science and industry, the utilisation of the most expert, knowledge both in work and .management, and more com-mon-sense co-operalioii between Ihe management and operatives to get the best from both jointly. The goods are wanted badly, ft is no lime Io stand upon worn-out precedents, the dignity of your status, and other shibboleths that men of action despise. The call is for more production, and our word to the em- . plovers rs "this is your job—to produce the goods. If it is hard your business is Io get over that. As you have chosen to be in charge of the industries (he call is on you to produce what is required." If some of our language seems a reflection, let it be remembered that those whom it does not touch it does not affect, and those whom ii does not apply to will probably endorse it air. (Contributed by \.Z. Welfore League.)