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