The Press TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1951. British Railway Dispute

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26357, 27 February 1951, Page 6

The Press TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1951. British Railway Dispute

, Upon the intervention of the new l Minister of Labour (Mr Aneurin >ißevan), the wages dispute between • i the Railway Executive and the 5' British railwaymen’s unions has ’ been settled just in time to prevent tia national strike. Unofficial strikes 1 on this issue had already tied up a , considerable part of the nationalised j railway system. All the wage de- ’ mands of the national unions have ’ been conceded, but not all the demands of some of the branches; and they have been conceded, it would ’ appear from the cabled reports, 1 without any firm assurance of the ! quid pro quo which the Railway Executive tried to make a condition ' of higher wages—greater efficiency and harder work by all railwaymen. The cabled report of the settlement said that the Railway Executive would not be able to bear the whole cost of the wage increases, even with i | the. economies and the greater effi--1 ciency “ expected ” of the men as part of the new agreement. Increased efficiency is of the utmost importance to .he British railway system. In spite of increases in charges last year, the railways ! have accumulated a deficit in the last three years of some £ 50,000,000. The railways have, in effect, been subsidised by the nationaliseck road , transport services; and the cost of ’ the new increases in railwaymen’s ' wages may be met partly from road transport funds and partly from the higher fares and freight charges which are now inevitable. Much of the discussion of the railway unions’ wages claims has turned, of course, upon the ability of the undertaking to pay; and there is no doubt that the Railway Executive would have ■ been less firm in its opposition to : the wages claims if there had been a reasonable assurance of the unions co-operating in a number of reforms which are clearly desirable in the interests of efficiency. The direction of these reforms was indicated by the court of inquiry which earlier this month pronounced upon the wages claims. The court accepted the principle that further increases in pay should be conditional on increased productivity. One of the arguments for the i nationalisation of the old railway companies was that the separate systems would be integrated, eliminating wasteful competition and . duplication of services, and permit- ' ting the more efficient use of the available manpower. The theoretical advantage of integration has not been fully realised in practice, 1 partly because of the railwaymen’s j resistance to change. The men have opposed the extension of “lodging “ turns ” —runs on which train crews travel further afield and spend a night or nights away from their homes—the reduction of staffs engaged on such tasks as “calling- “ up ” railwaymen for their tours of duty, and a more flexible system of , grading to permit greater inter- . changeability of duties. The court of inquiry was unable, in the absence of any assurance of , co-operation by the unions in these , desirable changes, to recommend an average wage increase of more than 5 per eent. This was estimated to cost the Railway Executive about £7,000,000. The unions refused to , accept the finding, and demanded an average increase of 7J per cent. It 1 is this demand which has now been conceded; and the additional wages • will cost the Railway Executive a ’ further £5,000,000. The risk is that increases in fares and freight charges will drive more business away from the railways to the road transport services. The railways are already a depressed industry, ill able to pay their employees wages , comparable with those paid in other i industries; and this unfortunate I state of affairs will persist "until the 1 Railway Executive and the railwayi men co-operate fully and effectively to rehabilitate the national undertaking in which they are partners rather than employer and employed.