The Ypsilanti daily press. (Ypsilanti, Mich.) 1928-1962, 1942-03-26


ductivity per man more than
enough to offset the shrinkage IN
the days length.
The next reduction, down 70
eight hours, was effected within
my personal recollection.
I heard the ensuing talk myself
Just as on the preceding occasion,
employers had acquieseed in the
second cut very reluctantly. but 1t
wasn't long before they began ad-
hitting that they'd downright
profited by it, their toilers worked
SO much more energetically.
The generally accepted explana-
tion was that a man on go 10
72-hour weekly schedule was ever
lastingly all tagged out. beyond
the physical$apacity to put much
pep into his job, but he could stand
IS hours pretty well.
II it had been the hired men
alone who told this story, I might
have discounted it to a certain ex-
tent, but to listen to it from high
up industrialists and miscellaneous
economists was middling convinc-
ing. The theory Of the thing was
plausible, too.
There's a Limit
There was more whiting later,
down 20 40 weekly hours.
No doubt it's a process. that can
be overdone. A chop down TO one
daily hour surely wouldn't increase
production. No matter how hard
and fast a laborer scrabbled on a
siX-hour weekly basis, he scarcely
could out-produce one working 40,
IS or even y hours in the same
period.
The fact remains that experts
concur in voting for around a max
imum Of eight daily hours, six
times weekly as a big outputs
best friend.
Now, in the interests Of huge
war production, the agitations
general, except possibly on the
workers part, for boosting the
hourly limit. almost indefinitely.
It's also for the abolition Of over
time, and double time pay for hol-
idays, and for abolition of the
closed shop likewise, for the aboli-
ton of everything suspected Of in
reference with our war effort.
Now. there isn't enough dissent
to wad a shotgun from the propo-
sitlon that that effort shouldn't be
interfered with by anything under
the sun.
Yet these questions arise:
If a reasonable reduction in our
daily working hours previously in
creased production, why wouldn't
an increase in their number to
their former. less productive fig
ure, result in a productive decrease
this time? II it would, it's move
In exactly the direction that We
don't want 10 take.
And overtime and holiday double
time7
Both were adopted with a view
to preventing employers from over
stretching the working day 10
labor's financial advantage, it's
true. but involving an occasional
excess Of working time TO the point
OF frazzling it out past the point
Of 100 per cent efficiency.
And the closed shop?
Unionizstion may have been
abused in spots, but, in the main.
IL has been a productive factor.
It's played its important part In
making our industries what they
are-and want EN- TO be stnl more
Of. in the present emergency. VIII
jerking the closed shop out from
under EN- be beneficial in the long
run?
Popular Opinion
Tie popular argument is that
it's perfectly outrageous for civil
ian labor 10 insist on Limitation Of
its hours, or overtime. with our
selectees devoting their whole lives.
and maybe sacrificing EN-, at the
rate Of s21 to $50 monthly.
Far be II from me- TO underesti-
mate selectee's sacrifices. but
he's in a somewhat different classi.
hcation than an industrial work.
ingman.
The latter has normal expenses
TO meet out Of his pay check. The
selsctee, unless his draft board
makes insufficient allowances for