CHEAP LABOUR?

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 130, 29 November 1919, Page 11

CHEAP LABOUR?

TRAINING SOLDIERS AS<__». PENTERS

the >vmomm.\uwymaim

The following: statement signed by-Mr.-W. Maddison, National Secretary of ihi» Amalgamated Society of Carpenters an* Joiners, throws additional light on- the Society's attitude on the' Repatriation Department's proposal to train returned soldiers as carpenters. . The details of the scheme were published in Thursday's Post, and, following up the. official statement, Mr. Maddison writes :— ■

"The report of the Repatriation Board's conference re training soldiers as carpenters would-lead one ro believe that the whole scheme had met with, universal approval at the hands of all those concerned, and left nothing further to ba desired. Such, however, ia not the case. The carpenters' delegates had no powes to agree to anything; they could only, carry back the proposals to their unions, and leave the union members to accept or: reject' the proposals, as they saw fit. When the Order-in-Council referring to this'matter was being dealt with, the various unions had the matter under discussion and the opinion of unionists generally was adverse to the whole scheme; and it does not need a prophet to say that the present proposals will be turned down completely. Still it does not follow that some basis may not be arrived at by which the desired end can be attained.

"One strong objection is, that employers who' do not trouble to teach apprentices, but let them drift into the trade, are not likely to take any more trouble with an able-bodied man, who will make a good labourer on emergencies, and there are those who prophesy that these sold-ier-carpenters will be more often on the concrete board than.at the bench. From the unionist point of view three questions are involved, viz. : —

"1. Teaching the soldier a trade. "2. Exploiting the soldier for the sake of cheap labour.

"3. Using the soldier to break up the present trade conditions with a view to an amount of unemployment. "The first question is'one that no one has a right to refuse. The other two questions the unionist has every right to guard himself against, so that, as a result of this, we have to protect the soldier against himself, to protect him against the exploitations of the employer, also to protect ourselves against the employers, 'i

"The unionists are under no delusion, in this matter. To their mind, the average employer is out for cheap labour, and the soldier is merely an incidental to its attainment. The success of such a scheme demands the co-operation of the men as well as employers: the teaching of these men depends upon the goodwill of the .men they may work with. Unless the union men co-operate in the working out of the scheme, it is doomed to failure. At a time when, in the interests of the greater output, the utmost harmony should prevail, it is regrettable that 6uch an ill-advised scheme should ba introduced, a scheme that will provoke nothing but hostility. If the question is to be forced on the men against theirwill, the best that can be hoped from it is sullen resistance.

"As I have already stated, there is iio doubt about the scheme being turned down by the rank and file of the unionists. They fail to see why the State should throw £7000 a year at the employers for the sake of introducing 100 men to the position of building tradei labourers. Consequently, it -would b» wise if those concerned made haste slowly in this matter, unless they deliberately want to court trouble; and at the same time-they should take further counsel. with a view to elaborating a scheme thai ensures a' fair measure of success."