Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1939. BUILDING UP PRODUCTION.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 22 June 1939, Page 6

Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1939. BUILDING UP PRODUCTION.

NOTHING is better eslablishetl, as matters stand in this country, than that a substantial increase in production would benefit every section of its population and do something' at. least to remedy economic troubles which are already lormidable and threaten to become much more serious. That, beinir so, two suggestions as to methods ol increasing production which have been submitted to the Prime Minister by the New Zealand Employers’ Federation and the Associated Chambers of Commerce plainly are entitled to the earnest consideration of all concerned. One of these suggestions is that, where the forty hour week now applies, the first four hours of overtime in any week shall be worked at ordinary time rates —the extra hours to be spread over the first five days of the week, or worked on Saturday morning, as may be mutually arranged. The other suggestion is the adoption of piecework wherever such a system can be easily and readily applied. These proposals are both of them practical and timely. They offer an undoubted means of increasing production without inflicting Hie slightest hardship on anyone. It is pointed out, for instance, that the addition of lour hours’ work at ordinary rates to the forty hour week would have the effect ol increasing production in the' industries concerned by approximately ten per cent. It would give the worker higher wages, and it would tend in some measure to cheek the present increase in living and other costs. The system of piecework also might be extended with unqualified all-round benefit: ft is the only 7 system that enables good workers to profit, as they should, by’ their skill. There is little enough ground in these days lor the fears formerly entertained that, piecework would open the way 7 to the sweating of labour. Piecework has been applied to some industries in this country, and inertia on the part of workers and employers probably 7 is chiefly 7 responsible for the system not having been developed more widely. At an immediate view, however, and looking to the possibility of attaining quick results on a considerable scale, the more important of the. two proposals put forward no doubt is that relating to the modification ol: the forty 7 hour week. Considered fairly on its merits, the suggested modification might well be agreed to almost unanimously. On the basis of an hourly 7 rate of pay, many 7 workers, given freedom of choice, would have every 7 reason ' unhesitatingly to prefer a 44 hour week to one of forty hours. Some workers frankly 7 regard the reduction of the working week to forty hours as at best a poor and dubious benefit. Few, it may be supposed, think that/this benefit, such as it is, adequately 7 offsets a rising cost of living and conditions generally 7 which can hardly be expected to work out otherwise than in economic depression and’ insecurity 7 of employment. Considering also that the forty hour week applies only 7 to a section of the working population, many 7 of whose.members work very much longer hours, and taking account of the general effect on industry 7 and trade, the case for a moderate extension of working hours beyond forty becomes overwhelming. A host of factory 7 managers and other business men could, give specific and striking evidence of the extent to which the i list iI ol ion of the forty 7 hour week lias not only 7 raised costs and prices, but has checked seriously 7 the volume of trade and industrial dealings. The reduction of costs- is essential if the drift towards depression is to be arrested and if anything effective is to be done towards eliminating one of the worst and most, menacing features of our present economic situation—the widening gap between costs and returns in the principal branches of land industry. The extension of working hours suggested to the Prime Minister would be of far-reaching effect, in reducing costs. At the same time it would inflict no hardship on those immediately’ concerned, but on the contrary 7 would operate in most instances decidedly 7 to their benefit. Tt is not suggested, of course, that the modification of the forty 7 hour week offers a complete remedy for the economic ills under which the Dominion is labouring or by 7 which it is threatened. Tn addition to the effects of an unwise shortening of hours in raising costs and in other ways, this country 7 is handicapped heavily 7 at present by 7 an extravagantly 7 heavy 7 expenditure on public works which at anything but a very’ long view, and in some instances at any’ view, must be classed as unproductive, and by’ tremendous burdens of taxation. Failing the application of direct and positive remedies, some of'these factors of maladjustment will have to work themselves out by way of collapse and ultimate reconstruction. The proposed extension of working hours would give a certain amount of immediate and appreciable relief, however.. It would do something to lower costs and io stimulate, an expansion of production and trade and so to establish conditions in which there would ho rather more hope than there is now of laying new foundations of prosperity. AMERICA’S NEUTRALITY LAW. jY GOOD deal of curiosity has been awakened in the United Slates and elsewhere as to the meaning of the phrase employed by’ President Roosevelt not long ago when lie spoke of using “means short of war’’ to restrain aggression. Mr Roosevelt has not elucidated the phrase just quoted, any 7 more than he did the earlier one, now more or less lapsed into oblivion, in which he spoke of “quarantining” aggressors. Using “means short of war” against aggressor nations might be supposed to imply the use of economic weapons, but there is no definite authority for such an interpretation of the President’s words. It must be added that the proposals for the amendment of the American Neutrality’ Act, on which .Mr Roosevelt is seeking an early vote by 7 Congress, do not in themselves promise any very remarkable development in what, some of his own countrymen have called the President’s strategy 7 of inlerven- ' lion. The Act as it stands provides for an automatic embargo on the export of arms to belligerents. The proposals on which Congress is about to be asked to vote dispense with this embargo, but provide that arms shall he sold to belligerents only on the “-cash and carry plan.” Ilelligerents, that is to say, are to pay cash for any arms and munitions purchased in the United. States and are Io provide their own transport. Amei'iean loans and credits to belligerents are forbidden. American vessels are prohibited from entering a war zone and from carrying men or munitions which might be destined for transhipment to a belligerent vessel. American citizens cannot lawfully travel on belligerent vessels. In the main these proposals evidently are designed rigidly’ to safeguard American neutrality and presumably any controversy I hat may arise in Congress will relate only to the retention or abandonment of the embargo on Hie export ol arms to belligerents, or rather the policy ol allowing belligerents to purchase arms in America and transport them at their own risk. The adoption ol the proposals no doubt would favour the European democracies to the extent that in the event of a European war, nations possessing command of the sea would be likely to have a virtual monopoly of the privilege of purchasing arms from Hie United States in the conditions stated. The proposals appear to bold no very brilliant promise, however of any practical development of what has been called the President’s strategy of intervention.