The Industrial World

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 884, 4 October 1933, Page 11

The Industrial World

CONDUCTED BY OBSERVER

This column is devoted to the news of the industrial Labour movement as represented by the secretaries of the various unions whose headquarters are at the Trades Hall.

Trade Union News and Views.

Meetings for the coming week: The Dairy Factory Employees’ Union

to-night 7.45. The Dressmakers’ Trade Union, tonight, 7.30. The Furniture Trade Union, to-night, 8 p.m.

The Canterbury District Council, Thursday, 8 p.m. The Trades and Labour Council, Saturday, S p.m. The Tailoresses’ Union, Monday, 7.30 p.m. The Painters’ Union, Monday, 7.30 p.m. The Boilermakers’ Trade Union, Tuesday, 8 p.m. Economic Changes.

The attempts being made towards economic planning in most of the Western countries introduce the question of the place of the trade union in these modifications of the capitalist system. The role of the trade union in the past has been one of a negative kind, as far as production and efficiency within a given industry are concerned. This was due to the inherent weaknesses of the system which permitted the ownership of capital to include the function of control of all the factors or agents operating in industry. Ihe production of goods and services necessary for social wellbeing is in reality a co-operative process, that is the workers’ co-operate with each other along the whole processes of production, while the machines or capital goods assist the workers by reducing the amount of physical energy to be employed, and by increasing the vol* i ume of goods produced. There is } therefore a wonderful unity within any j industrial enterprise. But this unity i i* l l he organisation is realised by force, or by fear, in capitalist methods of industry, because the spirit of unity is absent. It is absent because the labour power, which includes the whole personality of the worker, is looked upon as an ordinary commodity. The costs of production are the chief coni cem of those who control industry, and if any costs can be reduced, then greater efficiency is being attained. The cost of labour cooAes under this same mental process, but in order to prevent the labour cost from being reduced the workers have formed their trade •unions. The trade unions also endeavour to get wages increased, particularly in times of general prosperity, and in addition reduced hours of labour and secure better conditions within the factories. Herein is the cause of anarchy in place of unity. This anarchy reduces the maximum production which is possible and impairs economic welfare. Within the economic system are two rival forces the trade unions and the employers’ associations—and very often an open conflict occurs by which the community in general also suffers.

Th# New Functions (or Trade Unions. It is possible, however, to bring harmony or unity where there are now anarchy and distrust. This harmony could be attained if the economic system was organised consciously for social wellbeing. The economic planning now in vogue is a stage on the

way to that goal. The trade unions should therefore consider the new functions and the new attitude necessary to this change in the social purpose of economic organisation. That is, the trade unions should become cooperative instead of negative. This may come through the formation of works councils, or a kind of Whitley Councils, or by representation on boards of management or boards of control. If economic planning is to succeed there must be formed boards of control which will regulate production, prices and costs. On these boards the interests of the workers as partners in industry must be represented. The problem for the trade unions is to prepare for the new alignment in industrial organisation by the education and training of their leaders and members. They must become vocal or articulate in pressing their new claims even before the economic changes are realised. To do all this the unions must be strong as far as numbers are concerned, and the members must realise their responsibilities to the union. The increased power given to the unions in America is an indication of what power the unions will have in the near future. Piecework for the Unemployed.

A matter of great importance to the organised Labour movement is the suggestion to apply a piecework system on relief work. This suggestion seems a paradox, because quite recently it was announced that the local bodies found it difficult to provide work for the relief workers. Also, it has been stated that machinery is not used on relief jobs so that the work to be done could absorb more men. Yet, in the face of these statements, the suggestion is that piecework be applied on such jobs as are available. If the desire is that men be found work or given employment to relieve the monotony of idleness, or to contribute some economic return for the income received, then the desire is a laudable one. But if it is difficult to find the work, and if machinery is dispensed with, then the economic return is an illusion. The idea that piecework will improve the morale of relief workers, particular!v when they see machinery lying idle which could do the work in half the time, is also a questionable one. The chairman of the Unemployment Board has stated “ that relief works exist for the sole purpose of granting relief to distressed citizens whose personal efforts to obtain employment are utterly without avail”

If, then, the granting of relief to distressed persons is the object of the Unemployment Fund, why force piecework on these distressed persons when piecework is anathema to all trade unionists? Another illustration of peculiar logic by the chairman was his statement that “ a private worker has to seek out his employment for himself; a relief worker has it found for him regularly.” This implies that a relief worker is not a private worker seeking out work for himself. One wonders what the relief worker is doing on the days when not employed on relief jobs. Was not the building scheme introduced to provide private work, and how would the relief workers find work as carpenters and labourers on these building jobs if they did not seek it? The relief jobs, as stated by the chairman, were for men whose personal efforts to obtain employment were without avail. That statement suggested that the men on relief jobs had tried to find out private work. Where, then, is the difference between a private worker and a relief worker? The whole idea is absurd and illogical, and if persisted in will create further trouble. As the Unemployment Fund is contributed for the sole purpose of granting relief to the unemployed, it should be used for that purpose with the least amount of hardship on these men.