Jason E. Taylor's Explanation: Article Analysis

On November 1st, 1933, the New York Times reported that nine employers won a ruling for a plea to allow longer working hours with the head line stating, “9 Employers Win Longer Work Plea”. The legal dispute was result of President Theodore Roosevelt’s “President Reemployment Agreement” PRA. President Roosevelt introduced the PRA to firms in order to create more jobs availability during the great depression. The Great Depression caused families and individuals to experienced crisis such as hunger and homelessness due to job losses. However, the article suggests that some problems had occurred with the PRA’s labour policy. This essay argues that the PRA created employment availability, however, the policy affected some industries output which

Taylor, argues that the PRA policy promoted employment but reduced some industry’s’ output. Taylor confirms that the PRA emerged August 1933 to address employment crisis during the great depression. For instance, the PRA emerged as a means to increase wage rate that would potentially increase aggregate purchasing power, spending, and company’s output. Taylor’s explanation helps because it identifies wage and industry output increase as two of the PRA’s main functions. In the author’s opinion, the Great Depression would have had industries wanting to maximize their firm profit while increase wage rate. Furthermore the reduction of the workweek from 45–50 hours to around 35 hours would have allowed work to be spread among more people. For instance, three jobs could effectively be created where there were previously two. The author explains that the Roosevelt administration’s claimed that the reemployment programme was a fantastic success, which created 4 million jobs during November 1933. Taylor’s research finds the ‘share the work’ goal of the PRA was achieved, as an additional 2.47 million Americans were able to draw

The New York Time reported that the Wood Harmon Warranty Corporation filled a petition with the Board on the bases that The PRA 35 to 40 hour schedule was too short. The newspaper reported that the company was the only company in the real-estate industry that signed the PRA. Most of the realty operator declined to sing the PRA on the bases that they could not operate without heavy loss on the schedule prescribe by the PRA. In response to the company’s petition, the Local Board the working hours to 48 hour per week with maintenance staffs. However, the Board change the working hours to 60 hours for higher class apartment building. The New York Times revealed that in the beginning of October 1933, the NRA had difficulty with several meeting in an attempt to work out plans for harmonizing the working hours in loft and office