-The Case Against the . -4o-Hour Week BY SIR HERBERT - AUSTIN: 1.4n
article by Mr. Geoffrey Mandel-, M.P., on " The Case for the 40-Hour Week" appeared in last week's SPECTATOR.] THE advocates of the shorter working week assert that with our modern resources we are able to produce all the necessaries of life for the entire community in considerably fewer hours than were formerly required for a much lower standard of living. On thiS basis, there- fore, they claim that a shorter working week in. all industries would, in effect, redistribute work in the labotir market and thus eliminate. much of the enforced leisure which we term unemPloyMent.
I must admit that I admire- the audacity of these doughty champions of the shorter working week who put forward as a cure for our present industrial ills the very disease from which it is Suffering. UnfortunatelY -for them the claim is based on a misconception of the existing position, for they presume that in- dustry is working 48 hours per week, whereas the actual situation is that only a small proportion of firms are working throughout the year at- anything like -40 hours.
I consider, therefore, that we should be getting nearer a solution of our problems if we confined our energies to exploring ways and means whereby we could- increase the demand for our goods and so advance our working week to 40 hours and ultimately to 48- hours, rather than waste time in endeavouring to bring about a state of affairs which already exists through the very causes we seek to cure.- Shortening the working week in Order to absorb workers at present unemployed, is just another aspect of organized. short time, a system which has been tried ' out over a number of years in the cotton trade and failed consistently. It is suggested that the -worker should -obtain for his 40-hour week the same remuneration as for 48 hours. Yet if this extra labour cost could not be covered excepting by a rise iri the cost of the commodity to the public,- it would have the effect of decreasing 'the market and brining about just the opposite result to that desired. Under normal industrial conditions 48 houis is recognized as the logical working week and present-day social standards are the result of years of effort and careful organization on that basis. - If any radical break were attempted it would undoubtedly lead to further chaos and losses to the country and the worker for many years.
It is obvious, therefore, that before any curtailment of working hours can be contemplated, international agreement on the point must be unanimous, for under the highly competitive conditions existing such a scheme as is suggested. could not be instituted by this country alone without disastrous results to our export trade, and withont a substantial export trade we could not exist for long as a first-class nation. It is significant that many Continental countries who are our chief competitors in world markets work 50 or more hours per week and at considerably lower wage rates.
These are only some of the reasons why I consider that a reduction in hours worked, be it from 48 to 40 or from 40 to 30, would .aggravate rather than alleviate the present serious condition. It is only natural that labour organizations generally view the plan . with some suspicion, because they appreciate that if our present markets are to be retained a shorter working week can only lead in the end to a reduction in the " pay paeket ." and A lowering Of the living standaid at present' enjoyed by the workers. One would imagine that the only task confronting us is to put into employment the workers at present unemployed, but is there no Other problem to overcome ? Is it not equally important to try and improve or at least maintain the present amenities for the masses ?
It is my considered opinion that arbitrarily cutting down the number of - hours worked is equivalent to depriving the worker of his capital, for, after all, his capital is represented by muscles and brains, and the only way in which they can be utilized or conserved is by turning them into work. If interference by Trade regulations or Government legislation prevents the effort being put forth for which the worker receives payment or some form of credit, then he is being robbed- of his capital. Why the Trade Unions should favour any scheme which amounts to robbing the working man, I cannot imagine. There are many who suggest that a way out of our present economic troubles would be to raise wages considerably, but this scheme, too, is based on a fallacy, as events- in the U.S.A. and Australia have proved. Under present conditions industry would be quite unable to support the added burden of higher wage rates, especially when factories generally are not working at anything approaching 40. hours per week. Actually, until a better organized world can be devised, the contrary may be - the ' case and wages and salaries may have to- be placed upon a more economic basis.
I consider, then, that the task before us is to find a scheme which will make possible an increase in the number of hours at present being worked, and thereby increase the purchasing power of the nation. ' How are we going to do it ? Everything boils down to the fact that before we can have any increase in employment we must have an increase in the demand for our goods, and this can be encouraged in two ways. First by reducing considerably the cost of distribution ; and secondly by developing national confidence. One of the greatest ailments from which international industry and trade are suffering is - unequal development, the most serious phase of which is the discrepancy between the progress made by the manufacturing and distributing sides of industry. During the past twenty years we have seen the costs of production decrease considerably, while at the same time distributing costs have risen by leaps and bounds. This high cost of distribution is preventing the disposal of the manufactured product, and we have the dismal picture of industry being able to produce goods cheaply and well, and millions of people in want of them being excluded from these benefits by high prices largely the result of abnormal distribution costs.
There are far too many distributors of primary and manufactured goods not only in this country, but in the industrial world generally, whose work and efforts do not add to the value of the product, but form a serious and in some cases fatal charge on production. For some years past the confidence of the people in this country has been gradually undermined by the continued extravagancies of Governments and the demand for still higher taxes to meet them. There is little doubt that this high taxation is one of the chief- contributory causes to our unemployment problem because it results in such a large -proportion of the country's wealth flowing into uncreative -channels. A substantial reduction in tax demands would create the necessary confidence and result in' a great deal 'of Money being -diverted iittO, trade with a consequent decrease in unemployment figures. As the numbers in industry grew so would their increased spending power tend to absorb still more workers. What thiS country requires to-day is the opportunity of increasing the hours at present being worked and the power of the employer to provide this opportunity will be 'greatly facilitated by a reductiOd in the abnormal burden of taxation under which the country is suffering.
Previous page
