Evening star., 1933-10-08

Cla08 CSN1IOC IOuB COAAAASSosS VIC o1Ao4C
that belongs to labor by economic law,
even though in the past the employer
has had all the advantage. in making
the contract Undoubtedly the battles
waged by such noble figures in history
as Richard Oastler, Robert Owen,
Francis Place and the Earl of Shaftes-
bury served the great cause of social
betterment. Even 80, the ghaStly ex-
ploitation of labor over the centuries
has been due much less to capitalistic
greed than to economic law. The heart
breaking conditions of the early days Of
the factory system reflected the produc-
tive power of the workers. In our times
the possibility of continued exploitation
is very small.
One exception should be noted. In a
few industries conditions may be so
adverse to labor that the workers cannot
obtain justice, and there may be some
classes in the population that are sub
iect to continuous abuse. Children in
nearly all industry, women when they
are recent entrants into industry, newly
arrived immigrants and colored workers
in certain areas may be in this class.
Here the full force Of law should be
exerted in protection.
So we must face the fact that shorter
hours and higher wages do not increase
prosperity. They flow from increased
production. When a nation abandons
the free play of competitive forces and
embarks on a policy of regulation of
hours and wages, it is playing with
edged tools that may cut deep into the
social body. Such policy can have but
one objective. and that is the establish
ment of shorter hours and higher wages
than those the partners in production
have arrived at in the great arena of
competition. The one logical result is
a reduction of total output and lower
standard of living for labor as whole
It is still the law of life that man must
earn his bread by the sweat of his brow
The sh-button civilization" is fig
ment of the imagination of armchair
thinkers who find time to write be-
ca1se the long hours of labor of real
producers have made leisure possible.
No people can increase their well-being
by quitting work.
A special condition in this country
makes regulation of hours perilous. We
have the most elaborate and expensive
machine investment per worker on earth.
An hour cut from the work week means
more than a proportional cut in output.
It means an hours idleness for a ma
chine whose cost is measured in interest
on the investment before the machine
wears out. A 30-hour week means a
plant idle for 1873 hours in 168 But
there will be two shifts or three. Quite
right; in many industries the only solu-
ton of the increased cost Of idle equip
ment is through additional shifts. as
many mill-owners have discovered since
August l. But a reduction of hours
from A to 80 without a reduction in
weekly pay means flat increase of labor
costs of Al per cent. The "share-the-
work" program does not mean three days
a week for two men instead of six days
a week for one.- This form of stagger-
ing employment has been adopted
already by nearly all our major indus
tries since 1891. Its value lies in its
keeping down the numbers of the
totally unemployed reducing bread
lines and the numbers dependent on
charity. It has not restored prosperity.
The share -the-work reformers demand
a compulsory reduction in hours for all
workers, with q legal minimum wage
equal to the old wage for the longer
week.
A REALLY drastic share the work
program would be an attempt to
give labor two of the three bonuses of
increased productivity, shorter hours