WORKER CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 118, 15 November 1945, Page 6

WORKER CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY

In his address to the Labour PartyConference the president (Mr. Roberts) indirectly rebuked both the Government and the workers for their failure to move more rapidly towards the party's objective that wage and salaried workers should produce the goods and render the services required by the people of the nation. "The time has arrived," he said, "when Labour should, at least in part, implement that objective. We had for our policy last election co-operative production of goods and the rendering of services. Only in a few cases has anything been done in that direction," If he wished, the Minister of Finance could probably give the best of reasons why the Government has (been hesitant in putting this policy into operation. At present Hie State is a sleeping partner in practically every form of private enterprise and, without taking any of the risks which those who control businesses must run, it collects up to fourfifths of the profits by way of taxation. In addition, it exercises strict controls over almost every branch of industry. Why, then, should the State do any more than it is already doing? Why should it share in the management of industry, and take the risks that that involves, when it can achieve its objective by simpler means? As the Minister responsible for the collection of State revenue, Mr. Nash is probably very happy to leave things as they are, even if Mr. Roberts is not. How that attitude can be squared with the objective of the party can be left to the Government and the members of the Parliamentary Labour Party to which Mr. Roberts has directed his comment.

The Labour Party president also had something to say to the workers. There did not appear, he said, to be any serious effort on the part of the wageworkers to demand co-operative control. "Unless the workers are prepared to undertake that responsibility," said

Mr. Roberts, "I am afraid that the march on the road to further progress will be slow. There is no earthly reason why the.workers should not undertake this work in many industries. There is no reason why the workers should not have a voice in the management and direction of industrial production." What meaning is to be read into the president's statement that, unless the workers are prepared to take the steps he advocates, "the march on the road to further progress will be slow"? Is Mr. Roberts suggesting, without putting it into so many words, that the Labour Party, having exhausted the promises it can safely make, is in need of a new rally-ing-cry? Is co-operative control. of industry to be brought to the forefront of Labour's policy as another plum (given at someone. else's expense) to keep Labour in office? If so, there should be an examination of what is involved. As Mr. Roberts has said, "only in a few cases has anything been done in that direction," but sufficient has been done —in the mines and on the waterfront—to give the people an opportunity of observing the results. What the public must ask themselves is whether the results have justified the experiments. ~ "The workers through the years," said Mr. Roberts, "have, by the system, under which we lived, been made irresponsible, merely to do as they were told. Now Labour has come of age, and there is only one cure for irresponsibility, and that is responsibility to do the job." We can agree that there is a need for responsibility, but does the evidence provided in those industries in which the experiment of co-operative control has been tried suggest that it has cured irresponsibility? Has there been that efficiency which advocates of the experiment have claimed would follow? The public will probably have no great difficulty in finding an answer to that question.

The right to share in the control of industry carries with it obligations as well as privileges, and everything must depend on the manner in which the obligations are interpreted. Before the public can accept an extension of the experiments that have already been made they must be assured that their interests as well as the interests of the workers are safeguarded. If the added power that a share in control would confer is used as a means of unduly and selfishly benefiting those engaged in an industry as against those who use its goods and services, the public interest, which should always be the first consideration, would undoubtedly suffer. Recent experiences in New Zealand have shown that increased power has not always been wisely used. Is there a sufficient assurance that it will be wisely used in the future if, as Mr. Roberts hopes, the Government puts into operation the party abjective to which he has drawn attention? If the workers are to be given greater responsibility in the control of industry, they must show that they are qualified to accept not only the privileges it would confer but the obligations as well.. They must accept risks. The bargain cannot be "heads I win; tails you lose." In advancing their own interests they must prove that they are giving greater service to the public. And there must be proof; consumers and users of services, in the light of experience, will not take claims on trust.