THE LABOR MOVEMENT

Evening Star, Issue 17697, 25 June 1921, Page 13

THE LABOR MOVEMENT

[By Veteran.] Brie/ contributions on matters with reference to the Labor Movement ore invited. ' INDUSTRIAL ANARCHY AND THE WAV OUT.' PLEA FOrTiECEWORK. The above is the title of a book I have fast been rending It is written by Mr W. Walter Crotch, a banker and a business man. Most people would think that a nan of that kind would not be able to approach Labor questions from the v> skin g man’s viewpoint. Cut it has been said of this bool;: “It is the sanest that has ever been published on the subject of Labor v. Capital.” I endorse that statement. and would urge both workers and employers to carefully rend it, I have not the space to quote a-a largely as 1 would like from Mr Crotch’s book. The Eight Hon. 0. H. Robertson, M.P*. who has been acquainted with the author since their bovfiood. baa written an introduction, in which he says: "To the outstanding problem of the period—the industrial problem —he brings to bear a ripe experience and intimate knowledge. In an analysis of the cause of unrest and strikes, he has succeeded in delineating them as psychological, as well as material. He sees clearly that it is not exclusively a matter of bread, boots, and butter. True, theso are primary requisites; therefore the provisten of security in employment and equitable remuneration rightly appear in forefront of popular demands. P>ut something more must be granted before enduring peace and content will abide In the land. The modern worker wants a definite status in industry, and the community in which ho lives and has his being; he wants the independence and dignity implied in the designatmn of British citizens.” Thera are six chapters in the book, but as I cannot quote from them all I cannot do belter than give something from chapter 4,' which deals with piecework. “If we satisfy the workman that increased production, larger output, and cheaper prices need not, and will not, create unemplovment, we shall have done much, very much, to solve the problem that at present confronts the nation. Eeeently Mr Tnwney, of the Miners’ Federation, stated in the course of a remarkable artie'e in the ‘Contempo'ary Review ’ that a change of heart in the workers, ensuring their active and cordril co-operation in the production of wea'th, would do more to speed up output than a generat’Dn of invention or the discoverv of fresh coalfields. He was right, though T need hardlv say T entirely dissent from the proposals which he advanced to ensure the co-operation of bis class- ■ • • Before the workman

grasps the cardinal importance of increasing outnnt, lie needs to be reassured upon ono other matter. Ho most be made to feel that, with cheaper prices, his wnges ' will not be reduced. What is the position of the workman to-day who is in receipt of a war boons and of waves temporarily advanced to meet dear prices and war conditions? Those wages wo know have been stabilised bv the GovernmentUnfortunately, they have been ‘stabilised under conditions that inevitably suggest to the workman that with cheaper commodities they will certamly fall. One of the worst indirect results of the railway strike was to confirm them in this belief. The Government told the men’ that their wages would not be reduced unless livmg got cheaper. The propaganda of the rnilwaymen and the discussion that followed the strike in the Press, brought out this fact c’enrlv. Side by side with this pl°dm of the Government there were published exhortations to the workmen, inviting them to ‘ think in goods, not in money,’ and urging Hem to do their utmost to increase production. What was the effect of these dual pronouncements on the mind of the average workman? Surely this: ‘The Government,” he said. ' is going to reduce wages when prices fall, and it now appeals to me to produce more goods in order that prices may fall. It is not good enough.’ Understand I am not putting this forward as a conclusive or exhaustive analysis of the present economic situation. Further, I agree that the present high wages. wh ; ch are in part borne by the taxpayer, aro an anomaly, and cannot continue unless production is increased. I go further, and if say that those wages are useless, or largely useless, to the workman so long as he is deprived of the purchasing power of the money hv the restriction of commodities. But I say that to tell men, or to allow them to infer, that their wages will be reduced when they have speededup production, is to put a prcnrnm on ‘ca’ canny’ and dilatoriness. The plain fact is, that the present system _ of remunerating labor is uneconomic and out of date. T have referred to the remarkable fact that while in the United States wages are hichc-r both as regards their money and their real value, yet goods are cheaper. Why is this ? As I believe, it is because, while the English workman is paid largely on a .time basis, and is, as he thinks, protected by a minimum wage, his brother across the Atlantic is on piecework, and has therefore a direct and powerful incentive to produce as much as he possibly can. Let me take (he minimum wage now paid to miners under the Snnkey award as a typical instance of the viciousness of our present system. I am, I need hardly say, all in favor of high wages and good payment for miners. My fong experience as a director of industrial concerns has taught me that the dearest labor in the world is cheap labor, and that there is no greater fallacy than to suppose that business concerns prosper exceedingly and amass great wealth when Labor is badly paid and inconsiderately treated. Certainly if any body of men deserve a high scale of remuneration it is the minora, who foFow an occupation that is, and must bo, dangerous in the sense that it involves special risks to their life and limb—risks which no amount of care or technical knowledge or scientific administration can eliminate. Moreover, the nation depends to a very large extent on the good conduct and prosperity of the coal industry. . . . But what are the facts in regard to the present position of the mining industry? First the miners are Baked up solidly in battle array both against the owners and the Government, and as we have seen they are, according to the ‘Miners’ Next Step' 1 (this is a pamphlet issued in 1919 by the Miners’ Federation), determined to exact from the owners such a minimum wage as will make it impossible to conduct the industry at a profit. Tt may bo that the .'diners’ Federation will succeed by its strategic policy of limiting output incoming nationalisation on a reluctant Government. Even so, I do not think this will case the situation. I have before me a speech by the miners’ leader in which he says the fight they had put up in the past against the private capitalists would bo ns nothing to the effort which they would be called upon to make when the mines were controlled by the Government, Events since have confirmed the warning of that speech. The mines are under the control of the nation, and industrial peace has not ensued in the coalfields. . . . We may take it that whereas the miners ■will contiue to chastise the owners with whips, they have scorpions |n readiness for the Government in those happy days when profit has been eliminated from coalfields and officialdom reigns supreme at Whitehall. Now, this is the direct result, as I am going to suggest, of the present system of the remuneration of Labor. It is an outcome of the minimum wage. . . . I am one of those who would cheerfully see the miner earn £7, £B, or £lO per week, or more. Some of the miners are now receiving that sum because they put their back into the business and win a considerable amount of coal. What I object to .in regard to this minimum wage and all such arrangements ia„ that it assures the workman a return whether he earns it or not. I am. of course, aware that in the coal mining industry it is j impossible to substitute payment by result* immediately for the old system. The miner must receive some allowance when he is engaged upon an unprofitable portion of the mine. Moreover, in tho present condition of the mining industry when, as in the case of some collieries,. there is a shortage of tubs and equipment, it is necessary as a temporary measure to pay the sum aome assured minimum wage. But

the deficiencies of equipment are now being made good, aud when the coal industry becomes again normal wo shall find, I think,, that it affords a glaring example of paying Labor a fist'd wage and not bv results. . . . Now what is true ot the miners holds good, I believe, throughout tliQ entire gamut of industry. When hours were reduced, partly by Gov■eminent action and partly by arrangement with the employers and the trade unions, it was pointed out that, given speeding up and moVo intense work, a shorter working day spelt increased output. The samo argument has been used for many years past in support of the plea for eight hours.

Lord Leverhtilmo, who is, If ever there was one. a capable industrial organiser, has on those grounds publicly proclaimed himself in favor, not of the eight, but of the six-hour working shift, and we know from experience In America that shorter hours have been directly followed by a larger output. The same phenomenon occurred in munition factories, when production increased as the working hours diminished. Why? Because during the shorter working dav the men and women engaged applied •themsolves with intense energy and unremitting ardor to the work in hand. . , . Similarly, the workmen

in the American factories who are engaged on piecework have a powerful utiim;!ua‘ to put their back into the business during the few hours when they are nt work, and Lord LovorWSlmo. wo know, has a system of profit-sharing with all his workpeople. But for the average workman to-day, protected by a high minimum wage, and with a short working day, there is no incentive whatever for him to put his best into the job in hand. What is tile result? Production and output have increased since the war. but they have not increased anything like enough. To-day bouses are dear —so deal’ that the luxury of a house is unobtainable to tens of thousands of Englishmen. Boots are such a price that children, even of well-to-do artisans, cannot be properly shod. . . .

As I have pointed out. tie whole world is at the present hungry for goods. Never has there been such a demand, not only for raw materials, but for finished articles, as exists to-day. At the very time when half a million men and women are in receipt of uncmploved pav all the peoples of the earth are short of the very commodities which thev might produce. - Something like paralysis has overtaken our industrial machine at th(> verv moment when its free and full operation is most needed; and I do not hesitate to say that the main cause of that, paralysis is to bo Found in the restriction of output, which is itself a direct result of the present svstem of remunerating ,lal>or. , . . Un-

fortunately trade union opinion in this country is at tho present moment deadset nearest piecework; but I am convinced that if tbo case were put fairlv and squarely before the rank and file of the movement they could be brought round to adopt a more reasonable attitude than that which has characterised the utterances of their leaders in the past. The obiections on the part of those leaders are twofold. They assert, first, that experience shows that when a high rate of mecework has been fixed enabling workmen to earn high wages, the rate has invariably been cut. Mr John Hodge, M.P., the secretary of the Ktoe. 1 Smelters’ Union, has exorcised himself verv clearly and forcibly on this point, and he has explained that, whereas in America tho “boss” does not in tho least mind his workmen earning wages far in excess of those paid In England, so long as his profits are not affected, there has heen_ a ratal disposition on the part of English capitalists to reduce niece’rates whenever they found their men were dome; well nut of it. Personally I believe this attitude to belong to a.'bygone condition of affairs. I think it should bo possible for n national conference of employers and employed to hammer out such a settlement. noon piece rats lines, as would at once give tho unions assurances that the rate would not be cut if output were maintained, and at the same time enable capitalists to enter on contracts with the full assurance that there would be no labor troubles. I' believe that a return to piecework on these conditions would enable the workman, first, to earn higher waves than he receives to-day. and seco"dlv. to so increase output that prices would enormously fall. Ho would thus gain both wavs,”