Evening star., 1934-11-19
UNFA|RNESSSEEN
" IN 3O-HOUR WEEK
Rise in Cost of Living Held
Argument Against Re-
stricting Time.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

of 80 hours of work per week?
The American Federation OF Labor
says Yes" An investigation of some
Of the facts would indicate that the
A. F. of L. never made greater mis-
take in its economics and that when
the American laborer finds it out he
will reverse the tactics of the A. F.
of L. and insist upon complete
change of policy.
To determine the merits of the 30
hour week discussion, this writer asked
for the figures extending back over
20 years in an American factory in
the Middle West, in a fair-sized city.
Twenty years ago the workman in
the plan had pay envelope OF about
$3.50 a week. He worked 54 hours
and his rate of pay per hour was about
81 cents.
Level of 1914.
Now, using 1914 as a period in
which the cost of living was about
what it ought to be, and certainly pre-
war is considered a good time for the
purposes of comparison on living costs,
we find that in 1929 the pay check of
the same working man rose to about
S3450 a week, or more than twice
1914, and the rate per hour went up
to 10 cents, which is nearly two and
one-half timers what it was in preWar
days. The cost of living, however,
didn't go up so fast, rising only about
so per cent.
And while the pay envelope in
creased 21O per cent, and the cost of
living only so per cent. the workman
had to work so hours instead Of 81.
Let's jump now to 1888 and see what
happened. The pay envelope per
week fell to S23 and the number of
hours worked came down to 81, and
yet the rate per hour was 62l2 cents,
which was only 71a cents less than
in 1929 The cost of living represented
only 26 per cent increase over 1914,
as compared with the so per cent in
crease he experienced in 1929. So
the workman had a slight advantage
per week, but his wife had only S23
to feed and clothe the family and pay
rent.
Cost Of Living Up.
This was about the time Of the
N. R. A. drive and 40 hours was de-
clared the maximum. A year later
the Summer of 1934-we find the
same workingman limited to 40 hours,
but actually working 81. But in 1884
his rate of pay per hour goes up to rs
cents, which is nearly 13 cents better
per hour than it was. Yet his weekly
pay check has gone up only from s23
to $28 and at the same time the cost
of living has risen l per cent more
than it was in 1888.
Seventy-five cents an hour is better
pay than this workman had received
at any time since 1914. 1t is higher
by cents an hour than in 1929 But
the pay envelope of $28 did not begin
to compare with the pay envelope of
1929, which reached s3450 per week.
Supposing this plant now goes to a
30-hour week and the pay envelope
stays the same-that is, the hours
worked are fewer. but the rate of pay
per hour rises. 1t would mean that a
S28 pay envelope would figure out at
90 cents per hour. This is an in
crease Of more than 20 per cent in
total pay roll cost to the employer
For not only would the present en-
ployes who would work 80 hours have
to be paid SO cents an hour, but the
extra employees who would make up
the additional Z hours of work would
have to get % cents an hour.
Cannot Stand Increase.
The work would be spread all right
among more employees, but the man
agement of the plant would not be
able to stand a 20 per cent increase
in total cost because it couldn't get
enough more from the people who buy
their products. The company would
go into the red and probably out of
business if compelled by law to work
only 80 hours a week at the same or
higher cost of pay roll for a reduced
output.
And if this plant, which employs
nearly 5000 men. were to shut down,
it would affect the welfare of a fair
sized city. A weekly pay roll of S140,-
900 or about $7,280,00O year means
much to that city, to its stores and
the persons employed in those stores,
to say nothing of the individuals de-
pendent on them
But supposing the factory in ques-
ton could stand the 20 per cent in
crease in labor cost and the rate of
pay was SO cents an hour. The man
who worked 80 hours a week wouldn' t
be content indefinitely to live on a $28
pay envelope. He would want more
total earnings. For living costs are
going up and not down, as everybody
knows who looks at prices today and
what they were year ago for food
and other necessities of life. To get
S34 a week the same working man
would have to get $113 an hour and
the factory in question would be faced
with pay roll rise per hour of rs
cents today to S1.13, or an increase in
labor cost of just about SO per cent.
Miracle Needed.
Obviously, few businesses could
stand so per cent increase in labor
cost and stey out of the red. But to
get that $34 per week and be limited
to 80 hours per week. some such
miracle would have to be accom-
plished. The change would be in this
case wholly impracticable and, when
the working man learned the facts he
would ask himself and his labor union
simple question: Why can't I work
A hours and get S34 per week? My
employer would only have to increase
the rate per hour from rs cents to II
cents and would have to work one
hour longer each day on five days of
the week and two hours longer on an
other day. I'm working 81 hours now
and getting $28 per week. would
rather have Sc more per week than
the leisure, and so would my family,
for I can't increase my income by be-
ing idle
There are some businesses in which
the labor cost is negligible item
compared to the total expense. Here
lower weekly schedule of hours
wouldn't raise the havoc that such a
horizontal increase in pay roll cost
would in industry generally.
The 30-hour week idea, therefore,
presents a crisis of major importance