THE ENGINEERING LOCK-OUT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18513, 25 March 1922, Page 8

THE ENGINEERING LOCK-OUT.

The discussion in the House of Commons on the lock-out in the engineering trade in Great Britain served the-pur-pose of partially clarifying the conflicting points of view. Mr dynes* for the Labour Party, contended that the lock-out amounted to astonishing aggression on the part of the "employers, while Sir Allan Smith, speaking for the Engineering Employers’ Federation, repudiated any suggestion of a desire on the part of the federation to smash the unions. Mr dynes contends that workmen cannot allow Capital the sole right to conduct the workshops in their own way, while Sir Allan Smith replied that if the unions, apparently as many as seventy-two of them being interested in the dispute, conceded the principle that the employers had a right to manage their own factories, the employers would be pleased to confer with the men regarding the manner in which the managerial functions would operate. The main point, therefore, appears to be the vexed question of shop control, and this has been brought to a head by the employment of engineers on overtime during a period of general unemployment. There will undoubtedly be much sympathy with the suggestion that some of the men who are unemployed ’should have received the work which was being performed by workers on overtime, but this is not the only point in dispute. The question which was uppermost when the lockout was called was the refusal of the engineers to accept a wage reduction of 26s 6d per week, though, of course, the problem of shop control was always prominent. Sir Allan Smith’s proposal appears to be reasonable so far as it is practicable, and a conference should be possible on the lines of his suggestion. If the engineers were unanimously in favour of exercising a voice in the management of industry and agreed upon a plan the question would be less involved. Some sections stand for Syndicalism or Bolshevism, some for the guild system, some for joint control with employers, while others arc perfectly satisfied to accept wages and leave the employers with all the responsibility. There is no possibility of immediate agreement on these conflicting theories, and to experiment with the British iron industry at the present moment would be to court the risk of irretrievable disaster. Foreign competition is particularly severe and the small strike of last year, which did not affect more than 10,000 men, was the means of diverting a good deal of work to the Continent. The ballot which has been taken appears to reflect a feeling of apathetic indifference among the men, as only 50,000 out of several hundred thousand exercised their right to express an opinion on the points at issue. The immediate business should be the settlement of the dispute, for it is impossible during a period of industrial war to arrive at any permanent solution of such important questions as the control of industry. If it proves possible to give the organised workers a voice in the direct management of

industry in the future they must for their part prove their fitness to exercise that voice. While, however, they oscillate between the extremes of Bolshevism and individualism the question must await the time when constructive and mutually acceptable plans shall have been evolved.