Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1943-02-10
War Against Initiation

In his discussion of the war
against imitation" last night. James F.
Byrnes, director of economic stabili-
cation, had something to say, both
expressly and by implication, that is
worthy of serious attention.
For the most part he was ad-
dressing himself to the farmers and
industrial workers-the groups whose
income demands constitute the most
serious threat to our economic
stability. These groups, as Mr.. Byrnes
demonstrated, enjoy most favor
able status, compared to the country
as whole. The average weekly
earnings of factory workers have
increased more than 40 per cent since
January, 1941. That is more than
double the percentage increase in
living costs during the same period.
The position of the farmer is equally
favorable. AS Mr.. Byrnes pointed out,
the relation of farm costs to farm
income is the most favorable in our
history. Since 1899 unit farm prices
have increased almost as much as five
times unit farm costs. Yet it is these
specially favored groups-labor and
the farmers whose demands for
higher wages and higher prices are
threatening the Sterilization pro-
gram. 1t is obvious, as Mr.. Byrnes
pointed out, that these demands can
be successful only at the expense of
other groups-the widows, old people
with fixed incomes, school teachers,
unorganized workers in low-paid
occupations and "the woman who has
been allotted $50 month" while her
husband has gone to war.
Mr.. Byrnes said that this relation
ship of groups within the country,
already inequitable by his own defini-
ton, must not be thrown further out
Of balance. Except for limited and
special exceptions, he asserted, wages
must be held in line under the little
steel formula, and there must be no
further price increases except as re-
quired by law. He did not quite get
to the point of giving unqualified
assurance that these wage and price
demands would be refused, yet the
implication was that he would resist
them to the best of his ability.
But how does this jibe with the
compulsory minimum forty-eight-
hour week." to which he devoted one
paragraph of his address? Mr..
Byrnes made it clear that these addi-
tional eight hours, or whatever the
figure might be, must be paid for at
the old time and-a-half penalty
rate. In the case of the men now
working forty hours a week, and
there are millions of them, this
means a weekly wage increase of 30
percent. Some of these already have
received the 40 per cent increase
mentioned by Mr.. Byrnes. Are they
now to have their weekly earnings
raised another 80 per cent when
living costs over the whole period
have gone up less than 20 per cent?
And if so, why? Obviously, because
the Government Is unwilling to
abandon premium pay for overtime,
even though the extra work is neces-
sary to win the war. The woman
whose husband has gone into the
Army continues to get her $50 a
month, but the man who works eight
hours more is to receive time -and-a-
half. And peacetime penalty de-
signed by the Government to dis
courage work in excess of forty
hours becomes reward to employees,
even though the overtime is made
compulsory by the same Government.
In fairness, it should be recognized
that Mr.. Byrnes was in a difficult
position, since most men in the mai or
war industries already are working
forty-e eight hours at overtime rates.
An attempt to eliminate their time
and-ahalf would be regarded by
them as a pay cut, and might provoke
trouble. Yet, with these workers
| getting overtime, the Government
could hardly force other workers to
go onto forty eight-hour week
without it, SO Mr. Byrnes solved the
problem by decreeing overtime for
all. This, to some extent, is infla-
tionary, and it will add to production
costs, but it is an unacceptable conse-
quence of the failure to deal coura-
geously with this question at the
beginning
Nor have we seen the last of the
troubles which inevitably accompany
an attempt to deal expediently with
the Weighty problems that arise in
the course of war. The real purpose
Of the orty-eight-hour week order
and its sole justification, is to provide
more manpower for the armed serv-
ices, the farms and the war factories
Presumably with all establishments
on the longer week, fewer men will be
/ needed in non-War work 1t is cH-
pected, apparently, that employers
will dispense with the services of
those who are not needed, and these
men, as Mr.. Byrnes put it, will be
guided into more essential employ
ment, although Mr.. McNutts i'm
mediate explanation Of this pro-