6

wide openings for unemployed from related or nearby industries, whose absorption would, according to Mr. Batty of the New Bedford Teactile Council, require a very considerable apprenticeship. On the data submitted and on the basis of the present requirements of the industry, the reduction in the working week to forty hours will effect the re-employment of the hitherto unemployed and permit the substantial absorption from the outside of a potential 15 to 25% em ployment over and above the predepression level. It, must be kept in mind that there is nothing-static about such conclusions. Should there be a marked recession in production the question of hours would have to be reconsidered. For this and other reasons hereinafter set forth approval should be limited to a four months’ period. 2. Limit on machine hours. The provision in the code to limit the operation of productive ma chinery to two shifts a week of forty hours each was vigorously sup ported by representatives of the industry as a means of preventing overproduction and unemployment and as a means of aiding the large number of small mills which lack the resources for more than two forty-hour shifts and which otherwise would be at a competitive dis advantage in meeting increases in labor costs resulting from the code. Certain labor representatives appeared not to be concerned about a limitation in shifts. Mr Green stated, “If necessary to work two shifts, or three shifts, or even four, I think that should be permitted,” (III-T-1), but ended up (III-W-4) by declaring that he was “not fundamentally opposed to the regulation of the hours of machines.” A similar position was taken by Mr. Frey (III-Y-3), though the burden of his testimony as to the widening gap even before the de pression between increasing labor productivity and inadequate mass purchasing power tended to throw into relief the importance of controlling technological unemployment. The predominant view of the industry was that while less than the maximum of two shifts might easily cause shortages, and lead to unreasonably high prices to the consumer, the needs of the country can be fully taken care of by two shifts, which are not likely to be utilized by more than half of the mills, thus avoiding the overproduc tion involved in three shifts and the resulting migration and concen tration of the business in special areas (1-F-8). The proposed limi tation was also defended—by members of the industry—on social grounds as eliminating the use of the so-called “grave-yard ” shift. . The strongest objection to the limitation of machinery came from representatives of outside but overlapping industries and companies which carry on cotton textile production as an integrated part of other manufactures such as the tire fabrics and surgical supply in dustries... Mr. Russell Watson, of Johnson and Johnson, favored three shifts in the interests of low prices for surgical dressings, of affording opportunity for the more efficient units of the industry (II-C, D-ff) and on the ground that limitations applied to his com pany would throw some employees out of work. On the other hand, Mr. Kendall, who is engaged in the same business, declared that in an industry, like textiles, an over-supply of production machinery coupled with unrestricted machine hours would not only make it difficult to bring about a reasonable equilibrium between consumption and production, but would seriously interfere with the reemployment