Who wants carrots?
INDUSTRY ANGUS MAUDE, MP
Mrs Castle's attempt to steal some of the Tories' clothes, and to impose a compromise set of trade union reforms which satisfies no one, is of no particular importance. Even if she were to get away with it—indeed, even if she were to go the whole hog and satisfy the employers—she would solve none of the problems that really matter. The symptoms are not the disease. Of course, if you persist in the wrong economic policies, you can't expect the economy—or the people—to work very well.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the problem now goes rather deeper than this, so that one begins to wonder whether a change of govern- ment policies will make all that much difference. The trouble may, after all, be endemic in the industrial system as it is currently develop- ing. The problem of bow to persuade people in large-scale industry to work hard enough and regularly enough to keep the system func- tioning at maximum efficiency is not new. The question is whether the increasing scale of in- dustry is not making the problem steadily less easy to solve.
As R. G. Hawtrey said, 'what differentiates economic systems from one another is the character of the motives they invoke to induce people to work.' It seems to follow from this that it is no use blaming the people if the motives currently invoked fail to produce the desired results. Yet this is precisely what an increasing number of critics are now doing, and have been doing for some time. The chorus reached a climax at Christmas and the New Year, when both public and private employers indignantly berated the very large numbers of workers who decided to extend their holidays and stay away from work.
One can see the employers' point, of course. The larger and more automated units of pro- duction and distribution become, the more essential it is to profitability that the costly capital equipment involved should be worked continuously and efficiently. Large-scale ab- senteeism can wreck the whole system. On the other hand, if the system were really efficient, could it so easily be made to break down? If the system requires that workers should come to work punctually and predict- ably, it can hardly be said to be functioning efficiently if they don't.
All economic systems that do not involve state-imposed coercion rely on one of two in- centives to work, or on a combination of both. Either it must be unpleasant not to work, or it must be attractive and worth while to work. The degree of harshness of the deterrents to idleness is a matter of social policy, ultimately decided by politicians and enforced by the state. The incentives to work are largely a matter for employers, although, of course, the government's monetary and taxation policies can help or hinder them. It would seem that at present we are getting it wrong both ways. The question is, would the changes of policy generally advocated solve the problem?
It seems only common sense to expect that effective control of inflation, together with a system of direct taxation that bore less harshly on marginal earnings, would go some way towards solving it. So, perhaps, would a rational measure of trade union reform. Some
toughening of social security provisions would presumably have an effect on some kinds of voluntary idleness. All these policy changes are no doubt desirable and would do some good. But how much good is still uncertain.
To make things tough for the real layabout, who is in any case as often as not virtually unemployable, would not solve the employers' real problem, which is to make the useful worker want to work regularly and with ade- quate zeal. Tax changes would certainly alter the cut-off point at which workers decide that leisure is preferable to more work with higher earnings, but would it shift it enough? Recent experience does not suggest to me that it would. Trade union reforms which cut out inter-union squabbles and make strikes more difficult would not necessarily do anything to remove the real causes of strikes. So many unofficial strikes break out for stated reasons which are so trivial and futile that one must conclude that workers in some industries are in a state of continual frustration which makes any change from work a desirable relief. Bad management obviously has something to do with this, and no doubt politically motivated agitators are alert to take advantage of the frustration. But, basically, there must be something wrong with the work. For many years after the industrial revolu- tion, British employers (secure in the accepted ethical conviction that work is inherently virtuous and idleness immoral) relied on a com- bination of low wages, unemployment and tough Poor Laws to keep labour assiduous and industry profitable. Universal suffrage and labour organisation have destroyed that system, but not all employers have ceased to hanker after a reaction or fully adjusted their minds to the new situation. The modern technocrat pins his faith to the American idea of the con- sumer society. The scheme is to dangle before the eyes of the worker and his family such a dazzling display of attractive (and expensive) gadgets and leisure pursuits that he will want to earn more and more money in order to pursue them. The new system does not appear to be working here yet, but we are assured that it has not yet really got into its swing.
I am not here concerned with the question of whether the vision offered us is not one of a sterile round of almost unimaginable futility and tawdriness, but solely with whether it will work. The English have always been noted for their disinclination to exert themselves unduly except in rare and grave crises, and the conditioning process required to convert them to the attitude which is increasingly essential to the consumer goods industries will have -to be very far-reaching. The techniques of the conditioners are certainly powerful, but are they powerful enough? The persuaders will cer- tainly make the workers want more money, but will they make them want it enough to work for it rather than just strike for it? Perhaps the real trouble is that too many British workers have gardens, and are quite happy to spend long hours tending them. An economic breakdown which produced really high unemployment would certainly change many workers' attitudes, although not necessarily in the right direction. Anyone who still believes that it would solve the real problems can have little idea of what the problems are. Meanwhile, we are no nearer finding the answer to the problem of the worker who prefers to earn £30 a week and then relax, rather than do all the production experts ask of him in order to earn £50. Not being a pro- duction manager, I find myself entirely incapable of indignation against the chap. Cer- tainly he should honour his contractual obli- gations, and should be proceeded against if he doesn't. Beyond that, he is a free man, and what he does with his time is up to him. This is supposed be a free-enterprise system, more or less, isn't it? It seems to me to be up to the bosses to make it work. If they can't, I'm quite sure Mrs Castle can't
But suppose it can't be made to function properly? Suppose that certain kinds of work —and their products—are beginning to seem so uninteresting and futile that the customary incentives just cease to operate effectively? Suppose that more material possessions and increasing luxurious leisure pursuits can never be made to appear as attractive as their pur- veyors hope? Where do we go from there?
Well, the system will somehow have to adapt itself to a new set of assumptions, and very difficult and costly it may prove to be. A lot of money invested in new techniques and pro- cesses may be lost. Those who have made the investments will fight hard—and rightly—to keep them profitable. And in the end, they may win, even if all the rest of us lose. But they will have to win by proving their point in practice; and meanwhile, the least they can do is to stop blaming the worker for their own failure to convince him.
Previous page
