Royal Commission on Labour in India: Report(1929)||
The .system increases the power and the illicit profits of the jobbers and it diminishes correspondingly the control over labour which the management can exercise. Thus the influence of the jobbers is in favour of its maintenance and this is partly responsible for the fact that many workers apparently prefer it. Moreover, it enables the operative who desires to work longer than the Act permits to do so. On the other hand, the operative who wishes a short working week can secure it, for a strict observance of the time-table at present means only 44 hours' work weekly against 55 hours in the single-shift mills. We believe that this constitutes a powerful attraction for many, and the extra day off which has generally been associated with the system has an obvious appeal. So far as wages and production are concerned, it is admitted that both are increased by the transition from multiple to single shift working. As even the supporters of the double-shift system admit that it is uneconomical, its continuance is a matter for some surprise. The explanation generally given is that the maintenance of a large reserve of labour makes it possible for the industry greatly to increase production without employing new workers or additional machinery. We do not believe that the reserve of labour is as large as the legitimate working of the system should produce, and in any case we regard these considerations as affording insufficient justification for its continuance.