8
in.
is
al
Ym

re
Se

Le
+-
le
16
ve
a
of
Hf
is.
he
vb,
er
ad
or

‘he
ng
ve
of
118 -
ie-
be
oh

La
‘he

to
“us
We
ap-
ble
the
“he
wy
ves
we
we

ND

HOURS IN FACTORIES,

45
regain their old standard in any reasonably short period. From the point
of view of industry, the employer is entitled to claim that, until the worker
1s ready to approximate more nearly to Western standards of discipline,
it is unreasonable to attempt an 8 hour day, and even an 8} hour
day would involve an amount of dislocation that would be serious
It may be possible. in the future, when efficiency has risen further,
to go lower than 54 hours, But efficiency is not likely to be raised
so surely by a sweeping reduction as by a smaller one, and there will be
nothing to prevent a further reduction, if the results of the smaller change
which we advocate Indicate that this is desirable. Finally, we believe
that the 48 hour limit which some of our colleagues advocate could only
be operative at present if great latitude was given in the matter of ex-
emptions. In our view, the worker will be better protected by a limit
which can only be relaxed in exceptional circumstances than by one to
which many exceptions have to be attached. So far as the daily limit
is concerned, we would fix this by statute at 10 hours. This will
permit of working either six days of 9 hours each or five days of 10
hours with a half holiday on the sixth, and will give some elasticity.
We would allow factories working on continuous processes or supplying
articles of necessity which have to he supplied every day a 56 hour week,
subject to their giving the operative an average week of not more than
54 hours and conforming, in respect of Kolidays, to the provisions we
recommend later

Views of Members Advocating a 48 Hour Week.
Mr Cliff, Mr Joshi and Diwan Chaman Lall incline to the opinion
that the facts, as disclosed during the tour, warrant a larger reduction of
working hours than is recommended. They consider that climatic con-
ditions alone, apart from other factors, dictate such a course. The con-
binuance of the practice of allowing unauthorised intervals that are so
striking a feature of the industries working long hours, and the attempts
by employers to regulate these intervals are admissions that the worker
cannot reasonably be expected to give sustained effort for such long
periods as are permissible under the law. This is further borne out by
the fact that, in the industries working a shorter day, the workers are
expected to give and actually do give a much greater degree of continu-
ous and sustained effort. It has also to be remembered that, of the
organised industries, it is mainly in cotton textiles that the worker is
required to work for the full statutory week of 60 hours. Tt is in this
industry, which is already protected by tariffs, that, probably not with-
out cause, the charges and complaints against the worker of inattention
and inefficiency are greatest. If regard be had to the atmospheric
conditions under which cottoy, operatives work, then it must perforce be
recognised that, on physical grounds alone, the need of the worker for a
shorter working day is undoubted. This industry urgently requires a
higher standard of efficiency, but it is scarcely reasonable for the employers
to expect a higher standard, while at the same time they are requiring of
the workers unreasonably long hours. The conditions existing in many