THE ROOT CAUSE OF LABOUR UNREST.
TN spite of the preoccupations created by the continued crisis in Ireland, the British public is becoming dimly aware that there may shortly be even nearer home another crisis of almost equal seriousness. The most significant event of the last few months in the labour world is the formation of a fighting alliance between three extremely important Trade Unions, those of the railwaymen, the miners, and the transport workers. These three Unions in combination could control a very largo part indeed of the means of production of wealth throughout Great Britain. Without coal few industries could be carried on ; without transport, either by rail or road, almost every big commercial undertaking would be brought to a standstill. Thus the power possessed by the new organization is immense, and unfortunately there is very little hope that this power will be guided either by reasonable consideration for the interests of the whole community, or even by an intelligent appreciation of the needs of the workpeople themselves. In face of this threatening situation many people are putting for- ward all sorts of more or less mechanical schemes for dealing with labour unrest. To discuss these is virtually waste of time, for none of them attempts to deal with the root cause of the problem. To imagine that men who believe that they can improve the position of their class by a Syndicalist strike will be deterred from this course by some voluntary official arbitration reminds one of Sydney Smith's suggestion that one could affect the happiness of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's by stroking the dome of the Cathedral. As long as the mass of wage-earners in Great Britain are obsessed with the fundamental fallacy that they can gain, not merely an immediate, but a permanent, improvement in their economte condition by doing less work, or by preventing other people from working, it is hopeless to anticipate any real progress towards the prevention of labour disputes.
Nor, unfortunately, is there much ground for hoping that the lessons of experience will alone suffice to bring home to the mind of the average wage-earner the fallacy of the doctrine upon which he has been brought up. Only last week the Italian Syndicalists attempted to indulge themselves and coerce their country with a general strike. It failed miserably. All it produced was a considerable amount of temporary inconvenience to the well-to-do classes, and an almost incalculable amount of real suffering to the poorer people. The mass of the population in Italy are now cursing the Syndicalists whom a fortnight ago they were willing to cheer. Such a lesson as this, like the longer lesson presented by the Dublin strike, seldom con- vinces anybody for any length of time. The Syndicalist, and, indeed, the ordinary Trade Union leader, is always able to argue that past failures were due to some detail of defective organization, and that if only full effect were given to his theories complete success could be realized. In particular, he strives to strengthen his position by trying to compel everybody to come within the fold of the Unions, arguing that if this were donehewould be ablate secure such universal action as would bring the capitalist to his knees and exalt the wage-earner than unprecedented level of prosperity. He is characteristically backed up in this policy by intel- lectual writers of the Webbian Socialist school, who even hanker after compulsory Trade Unionism enforced by Act of Parliament. In a recent issue of the New Statesman there is an extremely able article giving an account of the manner in which Trade Unionists receive preferential treatment under the laws of Australia and New Zealand. The general tone of the article is sympathetic with the principle involved, yet the writer is obliged in candour to point out some of the inconveniences which result. Directly the State insists that every workman must join a Union as a condition of obtaining employment it becomes necessary for the State also to regulate the organization of Trade Unions. For obviously the State could not compel a man to jein any body which chose to call itself a Trade Union. We thus find that in New Zealand, where the principle of compul- sory Trade Unionism has been carried further than any- where else, the Arbitration Court regulates the entrance fees and the subscriptions payable by members of Trade Unions.
In Australia Trade Unions are not entitled to any preferential treatment as long as their rules permit the application of their funds to political purposes or require members of the Union to do anything of a political character. It is more than doubtful whether English Trade Unions would be willing to accept preferential treatment on either of these conditions. There is a still more fatal objection to compulsory Trade Unionism, which again is pointed out with commendable candour by the New Statesman. It is this, that as soon as the Trade Unions have, either by economic pressure or by the interference of the law, absorbed the whole body of workpeople, they will have gathered unto themselves a conservative force which will retard the adoption of any forward policy. As the New Statesman points out, a little while ago a Forward Move- ment Association was formed among the Durham miners by members of the Union who were not satisfied that the Union's policy was sufficiently vigorous. If, therefore, Trade Unionism is ever made compulsory in Great Britain, we may, in the words of the New Statesman, "expect to see the rebels ranging themselves under a new banner by way of protest against the control of the slow-moving majority which by their fight against non-Unionism they have imposed upon themselves." In other words, the policy of universal Trade Unionism kills itself. Mean- while, that policy is being persistently pressed by Trade Unionists throughout Great Britain, and is winning the reluctant acquiescence of many employers who are tired of the persistent interruptions to work caused by conflicts between Unionists and non-Unionists. Behind this movement for compelling every workman to join a
Union lies the belief that workmen have it in their power, if they are only united, to improve their position to an indefinite extent by simultaneously ceasing from work. It is this fundamental fallacy which is the root cause of labour unrest, and until it has been dealt with labour unrest will never be removed.
The fallacy lies in a loose interpretation of the law of supply and demand. It is perfectly true that at a particular moment prices, whether for labour or for anything else, can often be pressed upwards by limiting the supply. From this frequently observable fact working men have jumped to the conclusion that there is no limit to the improvement that they can secure in wages if they can , sufficiently restrict the supply of labour. The conclusive answer is that, if their doctrine were true, then by cutting off the supply of labour entirely and for all time they could raise wages to infinity. The truth is that limitation of supply can have no effect in raising prices unless there is a continuance of demand, and since demand is the outcome of the existence of wealth seeking exchange, it is clear that as the production of wealth declineii, se must demand also decline until, if we reached the time when there was no wealth, there would simultaneously be no demand for labour. Therefore any policy, whether of Trade Union leaders or of Tariff Reformers, which tends to restrict the demand for goods, cannot permanently succeed in raising wages.
In this connexion it is worth while incidentally to touch upon a blunder which is frequently made by the intel- lectual apologists for Trade Union fallacies. Constantly writers of the Fabian school point to what they call the strict Trade Unions of doctors and solicitors, and argue that if these so-called Trade Unions are recognized by the middle classes and by the law itself as bene- ficial organizations, by parity of reasoning Trade 'Unions of manual workers should also receive the blessing of the black-coated man and, preferential treatment from the State. The answer is that in no true sense are the various legal and medical societies which the law recognizes Trade Unions. The real aim and object of every Trade Union is to raise wages by insisting on a standard rate below which no one is to be allowed to work. No trace of such a principle can be found in the constitution of the Law Society or of the British Medical Association. . Every solicitor is free to do work for nothing if be chooses, and in the same way a medical man is free to take any fee, from sixpence to a thousand guineas. There is equally no limitation on the fees of barristers. The main purpose of the legal and medical societies is to protect the members of those societies against what is known as unprofes- sional conduct, and thus incidentally to protect the public. They are consequently recognized by the law and approved by public opinion because they tend to secure to the whole community better services than it would otherwise receive. In other words, these so-called middle-class Trade Unions do look to the interests of the -whole community as well as the interests of the profession, whereas the working-class Trade Union is solely concerned with the interests of a particular group of wage-earners, and seeks that interest by measures which directly conflict with the interests of the rest of the community. This is ultimately due to a defect of education- The middle-class man, owing to his wider practical education, has realized that be cannot in the long run advance his own position except by winning the approval of the persona with whom be deals. Be therefore never seeks to attract business by doing less work; he seeks it by advertising the superior merit or the superior cheapness of what be has to sell. Be seeks, in a word, to improve his position, not by limit- ing his own output, but by enlarging the public demand. Until the average wage-earner has grasped this principle of middle-class economics we shall never see the end of labour disputes, nor will wage-earners see any appreciable improvement in their own economic position.
Previous page
