The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1921. JOINT CONTROL.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 190, 11 August 1921, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1921. JOINT CONTROL.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong that need* resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we cm do.

The Railways Bill, which 'has just passed its third reading in the House of Commons, is in many ways an interesting measure. It provides for the reorganisation of the British railway system, after the lines are released from Staite control, and to some extent it leaves the railways under the authority of Government in regard to expenditure and methods of administration. Naturally there has been a great outcry from some of the leading railway directors and shareholders against this "bureaucratic" interventtion of the State in the management of a system which before tme war was regarded strictly as a field for private enterprise. But as this Bill contains a provision to the effect that the companies shaU be allowed to charge freight and fares that will secure for them the equivalent of their net income in pre-war days, there hf no serious ground for objection here; and the spokesmen of the companies have for the most part accepted the situation with a good gTace. It is, in fact, impossible to contend any 'longer that the regulation of the country's internal means of transport and transit should be left wholly to private control, and it is equally impossible to deny that, in spite of many mistakes and failures, Government intervention in the management of the railways has conferred benefits on the whole community. All these points are interesting, and render the Bill a very important contribution to the not very extensive list of British experiments in "State interference." But at the last moment a question was raised in the form of an amendment moved (by Mr. G. N. Barnes, tthe well-known Labour member, which gave ri3C to a. very significant and illuminating discussion. What Mr. Barnes proposed was that J the railway employees should be allotted j seven seats on the directorate of each of j the six great groups of companies pro- j vided for by the Bill. This is an obvious ' attempt to carry into practice the prin-. I ciple of joint control which has played so important a part in industrial disputes in recent years, and it met with a curiously mixed reception. Mr. Barnes contends that if the workers had a definite share in the management of the railways they would develop a keener sense of responsibility, while their closer | acquaintance with the internal working j of the system would, in his opinion, help j to obviate that needless friction between i j employer and wage-earner which so often I endangers industrial peace. It is noteI worthy that such relatively ConservaI tive members as Lord Robert Cecil and j Sir Fortescue Flannery supported the ' i principle advocated by Mr. Barnes, and ! I even Sir Eric Geddes, the Minister of ' l Transport, who was in charge of the Bill, I signified his approval. But the Minister declined to include the amendment in the Bill on the ground that "no railway board would accept the proposal." This in a sense might have been expected, but it is all the more interesting to observe that Mr. J. H. Thomas, who as general secretary of the N.U.R., speaks with high authority, virtually supported Sir J3ric Geddes and the railway directors by,

deprecating any attempt to force upon the companies conditions which they were not yet prepared to accept. The real reason for the stand taken by Mr. Thomas was, as he explained, that in the system of railway management established two years ago there i-s ample provision for the settlement of labour disputes: and he agreed with two of the leading railway directors in tlie House, who spoke to the amendment, that the existing methods are on the whole working very satisfactorily. Under this system the companies agreed in 101!) to the continuance of the Central Wages Board set up during the war, on which the railway officials, the staff, and the general public are all represented. But | when it was proposed to put representatives of the workers on the railway boards. the companies objected so strongly that the suggestion was withdrawn. The representatives of the employees apparently did not desire to press the matter in view of the attitude that the companies took up, and this view of the case, as we have seen, was expressed by Mr. Thomas in the recent debate. But the whole episode is in- 1 tcre-sting' and instructive chiefly because of the proof which it affords that the idea of joint interest and joint responsibility as between employers and workers is making rapid headway. The oldfashioned view that such a public service as the railway-system should be run solely for the benefit of the capitalist, and that it should be left solely to his discretion to manage it, is already practically obsolete, and the favourable hearing given to Mr. Barnes' amendment in the House shows that even in Conservative circles tlie theory of joint management and control is making rapid headway, 'i'he settlement of the recent disastrous coal strike involved the recognition of tlie miners' claim to a share in the profits; and now the principle of joint control is virtually admitted as equitable, though perhaps not yet practicable, by the House of Commons. These facts, in our opinion, mark substantial advances by employers and wageearners together along the road that leads to the ultimate goal of industrial peace.