THE REPORT ON INDUSTRIAL UNREST.
MILE group of Commissioners who were appointed on -1 June 12th last to inquire into industrial unrest through- out England and Scotland may be congratulated on having got through their work with remarkable rapidity. The con- clusions at which these eight Commissions arrived are not perhaps very novel, but at any rate it is a public advantage that inquiries conducted over a wide area should have resulted in a definite series of statements which can be weighed and, it is to be hoped, dealt with. Judging from the note which Mr. Barnes has issued with the recommendations, remarkable unanimity prevailed among all the Commissioners. Indeed, even apart from this inquiry it may be said that there was already throughout the country a fairly general agreement as to what were the causes of the prevailing industrial unrest. High food prices, the abandonment of Trade Union rules, the long delays attending the settlement of industrial disputes, the contrast between the high wages earned by some men on unskilled piece-work and the relatively low wages earned by skilled men and supervisors on day-work, industrial fatigue, and the restriction of the personal freedom of the workman to throw up his job when he feels inclined to—all these causes have -notoriously contributed to produce a feeling of irritation among manual workers which in some districts of the kingdom is undoubtedly serious. In addition, there is little doubt that the irritation has been aggravated by the deliberate action of Socialists and Pacificists ; but this important factor the Commissioners apparently pass over. Probably, however, they are right in so doing, for the problem of practical states- manship is to. remove the material causes of unrest, leaving the disgruntled politicians without any basis for their anti- patriotic campaign. Of all the causes briefly summarized above, the one on which the Commissioners lay most stress is the increase in food prices ; yet this is of all the one most difficult to remove. Ultimately the war itself is the cause of high food prices, and probably the main body of the people of this country would have been willing to face the resulting burden if it had not been for the widespread delusion that the rise in food prices is the result of the private operations of merchants and traders eeeldng to make fortunes for themselves out of the hardahips of their countrymen. If one-tenth of the public money that has been devoted to the War Savings campaign and to the Food Economy campaign had been spent upon a campaign to teach the mass of the people the elementary laws governing the movement of prices, a great deal of the present social bitterness would have been entirely avoided. It is, or ought to be, notoriona that all the Committees who have hitherto inquired into the question of feed prices have reported that -them is no " profiteering " in the sense of an illegitlinate attempt to take advantage for private ends of the limitation of supply that the war has brought about. That some people have made money by dealings in food- Muffs is admitted ; but other people have lost money, and it is doubtful whether food-dealers have in the main profited more in proportion by war conditions than have immense numbers of manual workers.
The eight Commissions, however, are so impressed with the seriousness of the irritation caused by high food prices that they recommend that the Government should take the extreme step of bringing down food prices at the expense of a grant from the pocket of the taxpayer. This recommenda- tion has indeed already been accepted by the Government, at all events as far as flour is concerned. In defence of the policy thus adopted one ia justified in pointing to the example of France, where a similar system has prevailed since the beginning of the war. There is unfortunately no evidence of the cost imposed on the French taxpayer, nor do we know what difficulties have arisen with French farmers and dis- tributors of food. But the French system has, at any rate, succeeded in keeping down the price of bread. It is im- portant, however, to add that not only has the price of bread been kept down in France, but also the rate of wages, as com- pared with the rates prevailing in the United Kingdom; and the probability is that if a balance were struck the bulk of the working classes in this country would find that they with their high wages are far better off, in spite of high food ,prioes, than -tlo French working classes with theie,rdatively low wages-and the artificially reduced price of food. This is an aspect of the problem that no politician seems to have thought it worth while to put before the public. All that can be said for the moment is that the country is now involved in a scheme of very doubtful wisdom. At tho expense of the taxpayer the price of bread is to be artificially lowered. That step will benefit the whole community, including even the wicked " profiteers " themselves, and including also some millions of people who are distinctly better off than they were before the era of war prices. In addition, of course, relief will be brought to the very poor, to whom the high price of bread has been a most terrible burden. But this relief will be very small compared with their poverty. If the object of the State had been to relieve suffering where suffering had really been caused, then the proper course would have been to subsidize the very poor with hard cash, so that they might be in a position to buy not only the bread they want but the other necessaries of life. This might have conceivably been as great a burden upon the Exchequer—though that is im- probable—as the course which the Government propose to follow, but it would at any rate have dealt with the real evil instead of bringing relief to hundreds of thousands of families who need no relief at all. On the other hand, it may be said in defence of the course which the Government have decided to adopt that where a widespread irritation exists it may be desirable from a political point of view to take steps to gratify the popular wish even in defiance of the sound rules of government. But it is hardly necessary to add that such a course entails very grave-risks, for it opens the way to limitless demands.
Passing to the other causes of industrial unrest, we are on firmer ground. It is admitted by all who have had oppor- tunities of inquiring into the present industrial situation that, in spite of the general rise in wages, many groups of manual workers have real grounds for complaint. Most manual workers in this country have been bred up in the belief that the only way by which they could protect themselves -against grasping employers, and even more grasping foremen and managers, is by combining to limit the output of the individual workman. In the past they have found by experience that if a man works to the full extent of his strength, in order to earn a large weekly wage, many employers cut the rate of pay, so that in the end he will be earning with his increased efforts little or nothing more than he was earning when working at a slack pace. Few employers will deny that there has been real justification for this policy of restricting output ; yet in itself the policy is an absurdity. In the long run a mau can only be paid out of the product of his own industry, and if he produces less there is less wherewith to pay him.
The ideal to be aimed at is that every man should do as much work as his strength and his reasonable demands for leisure and enjoyment permit, and that he should be paid in proportion to the results achieved_ But hitherto there has-been no guarantee that increased energy on the part of the workman would ultimately ensure increased remuneration to him, To obtain this ideal it is necessary to establish an entirely new spirit in the relationship between employers and employed. On this point all the Commissioners insist, and in particular they urge that effect should be given to the Whitley Report, which advocated the creation in every dietrict of Industrial Councils composed of employers and employed. The mere fact of bringing employers and employed together on the same -Board will tend by itself to remove many of the causes of mutual suspicion. In addition, such Boards as the Whitley. Report contemplates ought to be able to determine the prac- tical issues which arise almost daily in the fixing of wage rates so that fair play is secured to both sides. In the absence of such Industrial Councils the workman is largely at the mercy of arbitrary employers, and the employer in turn is at the mercy of firebrands in the workshop. In the particular case of munitions work the problem has been aggravated by the over- centralization of the Munitions Department. This is a point upon which the Commissioners lay special stress, and it is one which ought to be dealt with without delay. Unfortunately there is little reason to hope that the new Minister of Munitions, Mr. Winston Churchill, has either the experience or the tem- perament for dealing with problems of this character, and we trust that they will not be referred to him personally for solution.
Previous page
