Efficiency

During the past few days three censure motions, without hope of success, were launched in various Australian Parliaments, and much time was wasted in pointless de- bate. How would this method serve in a modern business office?

Scene.—The manager's office in a
big trading concern.

Characters.—The Manager, the
Secretary, the Office Boy, various
members of the staff.

The Manager is seated at his desk.
Enter the Secretary.

The Manager (briskly): Now, Bings,
we have a pretty big day before us.
What about that correspondence I
told you—

Secretary: Sorry, sir. But there's
a motion of no-confidence to come on
today.

Manager: A motion of WHAT?

Secretary: No confidence. The Office
Boy is moving it. He wants to be
manager.

Manager: But, my dear Bing! This
is—

(Enter Office Boy.)

Manager: Here! You get out of
this!

Office Boy (beckoning at door):
Come in, blokes.

(Enter the Staff.)

Manager: What the—

Boy: On a point of order—
(He makes a long speech, pointing
out that the staff objects to the odour
of the manager's cigars, to his spats-
and the way he does his hair. Re-
signing himself to the position
(Psychologists will explain this), the
Manager replies at length, referring
bitterly to the condition of the Office
Boy's finger-nails and to his habit of
eating peanuts in business hours. At
one o'clock they adjourn for lunch,
and resume the debate at 2.30. Var-
ious members of the staff make long,
irrelevant speeches. At 4.30 a vote
is taken, and the Office Boy is de-
feated by 87 votes to 3. The staff re-
tires, leaving the Secretary and the
Manager, who is on the verge of col-
lapse.)

Manager (weakly): We won, Bings.

Now, about that correspondence—

Secretary: Sorry, sir. But the
House adjourns at five.

(Manager dies in his collapse.)