CO-OPERATION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 79, 10 February 1944, Page 3

CO-OPERATION

EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES THE GOAL OF INDUSTRY The goal of all industry is production, production of the right type, the right quality, and the maximum quantity of which industry is capable, says’a bulletin prepared by the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce after consultation with the Department of Economics of Canterbury University College. Wrongly directed production, poor quality work, and output of less than capacity, all represent waste and indicate that resources could be more effectively used in other ways. It is, in fact, the final object of all economic organisation to secure the most productive and advantageous use of all resources. All other objectives are subsidiary to this. Consumption depends wholly on production, and it is only through the maximum production of the things most required that consumption and standards of living can be maximised. All parties concerned have therefore much to gain from effective co-opera-tion and team work in production. Unfortunately this is seldom fully appreciated. and the parties waste much time and effort and lose much of he possible return of industry in pursuing differences about matters of minor importance.

Over the past century industrial development has been very great, hours of work have been reduced, conditions vastly improved, wages increased much more than prices, the range of commodities and conveniences increased, and the return in living standards for a given amount of work has risen greatly. Part of this is commonly attributed to trade union organisation and action, to the growth of a social conscience and to reforms imposed by law. But much the greatest part has been due to the great increases in production brought about by the large expansion and great improvements in power, machinery, tools, transport facilities, and consequently in the methods and efficiency of production and distribution, and in the volume and variety of output per person engaged. It is this production per head that limits consumption per head and determines the standard of living. Where this increase has been greatest, as in many parts of the United States, the improvement in working conditions and real wages has also been greatest. It is only by increased production that it has become possible to raise standards of living to levels that would have appeared impossible a century ago, and it is production and production alone that sets limits to further increases in standards. As a people we can consume only what we produce, but the more that we produce the more we shall be able to consume. NEEDS IN WARTIME In war time particularly, when the maximum production is required both for the war effort and for the maintenance of living standards, concentration upon efficiency and production becomes both urgent and essential. This requires that all those engaged in production, employers and employees alike, should :o-operate in ensuring the smooth and uninterrupted flow and the greatest efficiency of production. In he change over from peace to war organisation the maximum flexibility of structure is needed to permit the redirection of industry, materials and manpower to the new channels required by war. Within each industry and business, and in every associated organisation, similar flexibility is required. But in both the wider field of national industry and the narrower field :>f particular businesses, old routines, customs, habits. conventions, and prejudices remain, and it is rarely possible to discard old methods and irrelevancies and to direct and concentrate the full power of all resources on the really significant objective. Yet this must be done if the ends in Rew are to be achieved. In battle, classes, castes, prejudices, notions of ndividual rights, etc., all must be sacrificed to the urgency of the matter immediately in hand. Team work and discipline from both above and below are lecessary to unite everybody concerned n the most effective fighting force, rhe stakes here are life and death. Industry is farther removed from the 3attle line, yet it is industry that must provide all the supplies and equipment both for the fighting line and for the sustenance of those who produce them, rhe same necessity exists for team work, discipline and efficiency on the industrial front. But that front is farther away from immediate daifger, the need appears less urgent, and customary methods die hard. In consequence, the old difficulties, distrusts and conflicts remain, production suffers, resources are not fully used, and both Ihe war effort and the community standards are reduced thereby.

DEVELOPMENT ABROAD • | In some countries, this is being recog- , j nrsed. In Britain, for instance, it is ■ widely realised that war conditions ■ "have ironed out many of the old class : distinctions. Under present taxation, : the maximum possible income for in- ; dividuals after taxes are paid is relatively low. The same strict controls on : consumption, the same meagre rations, 1 the same willingness and need to serve • the country apply to all classes. Mean--1 while, unemployment has practically disappeared, wages have risen, and the people are being drawn closer together in their common difficulties and their ■ common cause. The result is seen in better understanding and greater mutual confidence between classes. Employers are more ready to listen to and consider their employees. Employees recognise that employers are human and have their own difficulties, and that the organisation they undertake is an essential part of the common task. 1 Consequently the parties in industry have worked in greater harmony, new machinery' has been devised for closer consultation and common action, and | effective co-operation, while not yet i perfect, is more nearly secured. Similar methods have been applied in the United States and elsewhere. Usually the organisation begins with the establishment of works councils or i joint production committees. In any • case, the objectives are to secure regu-

lar consultation between representatives of the employees and the man agement in every part and in every stage of production, to smooth out difficulties and differences, whether human or material, as they arise, and to prevent their accumulation to the point where they generate disputes, to ensure that all questions are discussed freely and candidly so that misunderstandings may be removed and united action secured, to gain for the industry and for production the benefits of the practical knowledge and experience of all its members, whatever their status, and to pool this knowledge for the common purpose of achieving the continuous flow of output at the maximum rate. COUNCILS OF INDUSTRY Developments of this type occurred in Great Britain under the stimulus of tile 1914-18 war. The shop steward movement, already established, provided a basis on which the Whitley Committee, appointed in 1916, recommended works committees and national and industrial councils, all of which were to be representatives of both sides. The Whitley councils achieved a considerable measure of success. But the division of functions between their types of consultation and the normal method of collective bargaining with existing trade unions was never fully and satisfactorily settled, and the trade union movement was divided in its attitude towards them. On the. one hand the works committees in particular were concerned with the special conditions in each shop, which might differ widely in different businesses. On the other hand the trade unions’ methods usually aimed to standardise the same conditions for all shops. A common basis to-day is that the trade unions shculd handle major general issues, such as minimum rates of wages, piece and overtime rates, and hours of work, while works committees, etc., are based on the belief that minor questions which vary from shop to shop should be settled by agreement on the spot. The latter procedure might mean some surrender of trade union powers. In ad dition. the Whitley councils represented organisations for the settlement of industrial relations on the vertical plane, industry by industry. Much of the trade union methods at that time, particularly in the industrial section, aimed at the organisation of workers on the horizontal plane and was striving to unite the working classes as contrasted with the employing classes. In consequence, it regarded the Whitley movement as cutting directly across its major objectives. UNION ATTITUDES This position introduces a real difficulty of industrial relations which is far from negligible in New Zealand. Trade unionism has been built up slowly and often solidly, over many years. It strives always for progress, has advanced step by step, and is very reluctant to make or accept changes which might appear to surrender any points already won. In consequence, it is in many respects rigid, unyielding, and conservative, and its reluctance to change seriously hampers flexibility and progress in industrial structure. Its chief purpose is to improve the conditions of its wage earning members. It might improve them by assisting in every way to increase their productivity, that is, by promoting cooperation with employers to secure adaptation to change, efficiency, higher outputs, and hence a larger product to be shared amongst those concerned in production. If its objects are better real wages and conditions for wage earners, this represents the only method by which substantial gains can be made. But esn the other hand, trade unions have been strongly influenced for the last century by socialist propaganda, ranging from the revolutionary socialism and class war of Karl Marx to the state and utopian socialism so common in New Zealand, and the aim of socialism is to displace capitalism. Hence the trade unions have never quite made up their collective mind whether they really want to improve workers’ conditions by co-operating to secure the most efficient production, and consequently the highest standards, at the cost of supporting and encouraging the existing capitalism, or to undermine and eventually displace capitalism, even at the cost of lower standards than would otherwise be attainable for their members.

This conflict of objectives constitutes an important difficulty for industrial relations. It is further complicated in New Zealand by the extent to which legal regulation is applied, both directly and through the Arbitration Court, which has now operated for nearly fifty years, and the disputes and litigation complex which has been fostered thereby. Nor are all the faults on the side of the trade unions. Many employers are just as untractable. routine minded and reluctant to change as the most conservative trade unionists. Concentrating on their own business problems they have become unmindful of and unsympathetic towards those of others, and have developed the habit of opposition to suggestions from workers whose functions they consider should be confined to the provision of necessary labour.

ADJUSTMENT TO CHANGE Such disparities in attitude, methods and prejudices are by no means confined to the industrial field. In every walk of life people tend to get into their own particular ruts and to lose contact and sympathy with others outside their own special fields. Patterns of thought and living, economic and social structures and methods, as well as people, all tend to become less flexible and more antipathetic to change as they grow older. It takes wars, emergencies and major innovations to shake them out of their ruts and induce them to adopt the new attitudes appropriate 1 changed conditions. In the areas nearer the battle line, this has largely been achieved. On the industrial fronts, the achievement has varied widely but has generally been less.

What is really needed is that we should all forget ancient shibboleths which can have little significance in the present emergency, and in particular discard outworn and unreal ideas about the conflict between capitalism and socialism and between employers and employees. There is no present dispute about the immediate emergency of securing maximum production. Both our war effort and our standards of living depend on it. If all the parties concerned could be persuaded to recognise this as the main issue, and to regard all others as subsidiary and relatively unimportant for the present, it should not be hard to secure the pooling of all efforts and all capacities in effective team work directed towards the common task. But the initiative for this must come from the people immediately concerned, rather than be imposed from outside. It must be voluntary, -self-supporting, and free from legal regulations and restriction if it is to develop the life and vigour to achieve its end. Only in this way can it grow soundly and adapt itself to meet the range and variety of conditions with which it «s called upon to deal.