NATIONAL WAGE

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 137, 6 December 1935, Page 3

NATIONAL WAGE

WANTED FOR MINERS

OWNERS URGED TO GIVE WAY

WHAT BRITAIN WANTS

"Notwithstanding its many divisions coal mining is a single industry, and is coming more and more under centralised regulation. The general practice in industry is to unify wage negotiations, and the principle of national discussions is as applicable to coal mining as to engineering or shipbuilding" (says "The Times").

"A flat-rate increase of two shillings per shift for all mine workers—above and below ground—in all parts of the country means a matter of £18,000,000 per annum on the wages bill; and the money is not there to be paid out.

"In 1934 the total profits of the mines were under £4,250,000; and. 1934 wns, as matters go, a good year. To concede this two shillings would mean— other things remaining unaltered—the acceptance of a new burden equal, in the next twelve months, to the calculable profits for the next five years" (says the "Birmingham Post"). Onee x again there is likely to be trouble in the coalfields. The miners are asking for an increase in wages, and although as shown above the present profits do'l not permit of'this, yet the men assert that the owners by improved management could increase the admitted low wages the men receive. For this purpose they demand a national wage and national consultation, and it is obvious that the general public are in favour of this national recognition. The "Birmingham Post" says: ARE THEY JUSTIFIED? "Federation officials know as well as anybody that there can be no question of any 2s per shift advance as long as the general economic conditions of the industry remain unimproved; rightly or wrongly, however, they have convinced themselves that economic improvement is possible; and their policy is to make use of this wages demand for the purpose of enforcing it. "Are they justified in holding that the owners, blind- to their own interests, have failed to take adequate advantage of the opportunities for profitable rationalisation afforded by the last Coal Mining Act? "Are they justified in believing—as they do—that the marketing arrangements of the industry are still radically unsound?

"And is it true—as again they believe—that for the sake of bettering the colliers' conditions coal consumers —railways, ship-owners, manufacturers, and householders—would willingly pay more for their fuel?

"Be the answers as they may, these are not issues which can be satisfactorily thrashed out at local conferences."

"The Times," too, in supporting the demand for national recognition, says: "Captain Crookshank informed the House of Commons that he would call a national conference if both the owners and the miners would attend; and it may' be assumed that he has since ascertained whether a conference is practicable or not.

"Mr. Mac Donald publicly advised th« owners that it should be to their own interest to engage in national negotiations, and he said that the Government would press them to use their powers to improve the economic position of the industry .by eliminating economic competition. CONCERN OF ALL. "The wage costs of the industry are not the isolated concern ,of a particular coalfield but a related 'concern of all the coalfields, because wages are round about two-thirds of the total costs of production. That being so, wage rates come to be a reasonable subject of national discussion, if not in fact of national arrangement.

"The way of negotiation is indeed the way of good sense and good feeling." "It is surprising," points out the "Manchester Guardian," "that-the coalowners—or rather the more obstinate of the leaders who control their labour policy—do not see that, the tide, so long in their favour, is now moving against them, and that if coal policy plays a part they do not like in the coming election it will be largely their own fault. l

"It is no longer posible to maintain the fiction that each district is in some miraculous way a law unto itself. The Act of 1930, which, as Sir John Cadman said the other day, had been the salvation of the industry, ended that. It did not, however, go far enough, and the movement among owners (as well as miners) for its reform is bound soon to lead to much , greater centralised control and much greater regulation. .

"No political party can remain indifferent to the case for reorganisation of the coal industry, and the owners will act foolishly if they persist in flouting the Government and public opinion, first, on the question of national conciliation, machinery for dealing with labour disputes, and, secondly, on the improvement of the machinery which Parliament set up in their interests for the control of output and sales." MUST USE COMPULSION. "The Government," urges the "Daily Herald," "if requests fail, must compel the owners to meet the miners to discuss a national wage agreement. "Alone among representative employers in the country, the owners refuse to meet their employees on a national basis.

"Their real reasons are entirely discreditable. The reasons they adduce in public are ridiculous.

"District differences, they say, make national negotiations impossible. Other industries do not find it so.

"The Government's responsibility for the present crisis is as inescapable as its attitude has been pitiable. "From Mr. Mac Donald and Captain Crookshank it is learnt that the Government is in favour of national negotiations. It .pleads and wheedles with the owners to get them.

"When will it have the courage to enforce the action which alone will save the situation and is demanded by every consideration of sanity and justice?"

Mr. Ebby Edwards, general secretary of the Mineworkers' Federation, writing in the "Daily Herald" on behalf of the miners, says:

"For many years the miners have pressed the need for national organisation and co-ordination of the coal industry, but their proposals have been either ignored or denounced by the owners.

"The Coal Mines Act, 1930, passed by a Labour Government, created machinery which the owners could have used to secure that reorganisation, but they have not used it fully. "The miners see vast possibilities in an industry efficiently organised as a national concern, from the pit-head to the consumer.

"We are even behind other countries in this matter. In Germany the producers control the market disposal of coal. Here agents and distributors control the markets.

We have also urged the negotiation of international agreements to prevent the suicidal competition on foreign markets.

"Thanks to the 1930 Act. there is now a central authority which could