Evening star., 1935-01-06

4E-s
Or The Sunday Star by J. Scott Williams.
reducing hours increases the total out
put is, in general, not true. It may
be true in very rare cases. If it were
true generally the employers would
find it out before the laborers. What
is true is that in the case OF uneco-
nomically long hours the last hour
may mean an actual loss to the en-
ployer. He can actually afford to re-
duce hours without reducing the total
pay. Thus we find a resiStless ten
dency toward shorter hours in highly
skilled trades, in machine work and in
many lines of white collar" labor in
volving continuous mental eXertion.
This is the economic reason why the
typesetter, the electrician. the highly
skilled automobile worker, the tele-
graph operator and many other types
of workers enjoy a short work day.
This again explains a sad paradox
OF life. Those workers who have the
shortest hours and work under the
most attractive conditions receive
much the highest wages. They are
the most highly skilled, they work on
the Dpst productive equipment and
they are benefciaries of this principle
of production by machines. 1t is the
introduction of machines, so much re-
sented by labor and so greatly de-
plored by the magazine economists,
that has given American factory labor
the eighthour day.
Unhappily, this .beneficient force
works but slowly in other fields of la
boz In vast areas of wage-work,
diminishing returns from long hours
are not reached quickly. This is espe-
cially true of the cruder types of man.
ual labor and of some types of white
collar" work. In such work .as ditch
digging or retail selling or dish wash
ing or cotton picking, the point of
diminishing returns is reached only
when physical exhaustion becomes a
factor or the excessive length of hours
results in deliberate slowing of the rate
of work.
- More Profit in Long Hours.
Even in certain types of machine
operation simplicity of work may mean
that long hours pay the employer and
the employe more than short hours.
In all such cases there is no auto
matte economic tendency to reduce
hours This explains the sad fact that
the poorest paid work the longest
hours 1t tells us why it has been
necessary to restrict the hours of
women and child workers. 1t explains
why hours have been lowered in many
lines only after bitter strife. 1t ex-
plains why collective bargaining has
in general been absent where it was
most needed and most militant and
grasping where it was not required.
But the grim conclusion of 1t all is
this: No matter where the point of
diminishing returns is found. whether
at nine-hour day or 12-hour day,
any reduction below that level cuts
down production and lowers wages.
This is not a pleasant fact. but it is a
fact. The "stretchout" system is an
inexcusable thing, but it is the nat
ural result of an N. r. A. code of
hours and wages that would not let
industry survive. If you arbitrarily
but gradually reduce hours in all fields
of industry below the maximum pro-
ductive level you slowly reduce the
standard of living and the wage level.
If you pick out one particular indus
try and lower hours violently, you ruin
the industry and put its workers in
the bread line
The President recently by executive
order reduced the hours of work in
certain textile manufactures from the
code level, already much below the
competitive depression level. to So
hours. That this executive action was
dictated by the highest motive goes
without saying; whether it is good
economics is another question. The
industry concerned is fighting the or
der to the last ditch, and the summary
dismissal of the whole code authority
indicates what the actual administra-
tors of the code think of the measure.
Source of Problems.
This gives rise to one of the un-
solved problems of life. A part of our
labor force is pitifully inefficient
through physical, mental, moral or
educational defects. From these come
the sorry victims Of our competitive
system. Here we find the SweatShop
worker, the restaurant worker on an
84-hour week, some women employees
and handworkers of many kinds. Ar
bitrary reduction of their hours throws
these workers on relief.
How far society should go in re-
stricting the hours of such workers
is a social question that distreSses
economists, however assured politicians
may be. In the long run economic his
tory shows that it is wiser to restrict
hours in these fields at least to that
point where the workers are not VIC
tins of exhaustion and are not de-
prived of opportunity for decent home
life and recreation. 1t is better for
society to face higher costs for goods
than increasing charity burdens. The
eventual solution of this problem Is
simple, but its discussion is not within
the province of this article.
At the other end of the scale are
the efficient, capable. high-wage,
short-hour workers. This writer hesi-
tates to enter upon discussion Of the
question of the proper length OF the
work week. He may be wrong. But it
is his sincere judgment that in no
major industry whatever is there any
economic or social justification of a
shorter work day than eight hours or
a shorter work week than five and
one-half days. This is the standard
44-hour week. A general reduction
below this level means higher costs
and lower wages throughout our
civilization.
It is my belief that those codes that
reduced hours to 40 or less have been
injurious to labor and have increased
unemployment. The application of
the actual wage and hour Avels of the
nraeidart,e ,.naverlov,,oort aoraaroant