"WORKING FOR A BOSS"

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 76, 31 March 1922, Page 3

"WORKING FOR A BOSS"

DEFECTS OF WAGES SYSTEM.

An interesting examination of the present industrial system, especially in its ethical and moral aspects, was made by Archdeacon Davies, principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, lecturing at St. Paul's Chapter' House in Melbourne .recently on "The Wages System; or Working for a Boss." After indicating how certain persons be: come employers by taking risks and putting in extra time and effort, Archdeacon Du\'ies said modom business operations were generally on so large a scale that there was little chance for the wage-earner to movo up tho social ladder. 'The economic pressure was 100 great to be overcome except by a few who had the energy, the skill, and the luck to "get on." Hence in Australia and other civilised countries nine-tenths of the people • belonged to the wage-earning class, and must remain so unless a revolution placed them on top, and even' then the majority would be under some sort of authority. The employers in the recent Economic Conference were mainly concerned with the efficiency of the worker; the wage-earners desired greater liherty and justice of treatment. There was a tendency to merge particular trade disputes into a general class warfare, and a gathering 1 together of 'forces on each side. The modern wage system had created a now class consciousness, and the wages question was resolving itself into a conflict of class loyalties that was much more difficult to Handle than a disagreement between persons. The world was threatened with a class_ warfare as wide as civilisation. Production of goods in anticipation of demand tended to create fluctuations in business, inseparable from the speculative character of modern trade, and those fluctuations pressed more heavily upon the wage-earner than upon the employer. The root of the matter was that "things are in the saddle and ride mankind." Modern business .was organised to create market values and not human values. Things were made to sell, to make a profit, and not simply for use. The economic interest, the pursuit of gain, was dominant, and influenced both sides. As R. H. Tawney had said, "We live in an acquisitive society " Under the modern system the organisation of employment did not receive the same degree of attention as the organisation of capital, and unemployment was an economic waste. Labour was treated as a commodity, and men and women were not treated as human beings. There was also a waste of personality through undeveloped talent and misapplied capacity: Men worked to live, and did not live to work; they could not choose ' the occupation which would give them most scope for offering their contribution to the general welfare. The wage system allowed a great deal of individual skill and taste to run to waste. In spite of these disadvantages the worker had achieved progress. Among the various suggested alternatives he favoured the Whitley councils, in which the workers had some voice in the control of the business. The one reform most needed was that' the worker should be made to realise that he was not only working for his boss, but with him. It was the spirit that mattored more than the system. No revolution could solve the problem that did not remove the greed of gain. The Church's business was to give the spiritual leadership that would bring men together to realise their human brotherhood, their mutual dependence, their common interests, and their clivine obligations. The Church must bring all men into a fellowship of service. Several of the employers at the recent conference had beon reluctant to give details of the condition of their industries, and limited their remarks to general statements. He had ofteu been surprised that Labour unions wasted their funds on strikes instead of forming co-operative movements. Was a reduction of wages the only way of overcoming present difficulties '! Had all other possible means been exhausted, and was the worker being encouraged to attain his maximum efficiency? Possibly overybody might have to live on a lower scale for a while. Those in control of business should bo more careful of men than of money, and economic interests must give way to ethical principles. Great reforms had been led, not (as had been asserted) by economic experts, but by Christian philanthropists, such as Wilberforeo and Shaftesbury. It was o. damnable heresy to say that Christianity hod nothinc; to do with political and economic quesuqni. (AppLause.J.