The Eight Hours Convention 1 T is a familiar situation
for Governments, as for A- private persons, to get the discredit of. meaning ill when they mean very well. The Government arc in such a situation now in regard to the Eight Hours Convention. Probably very few people who have taken the trouble to inform themselves doubt the sincerity of the Government. But the Government will never- theless do a disservice not only to industrial conditions here and abroad, but also to themselves, if they continue to postpone asserting a useful general principle until there is complete agreement with other nations about a variety of details.
Those who think that what is not perfectly plain to-day will become clear as the noon day to-morrow arc in danger of discovering, as St. Chrysostom did, that to-morrow never comes to completion. What is more needed than anything else at the moment is imagination. Imagination, it is said, rules the world ; and it is certain that without it a Government will not be able satisfactorily to rule even a nation. When the Government came into power nothing, we believe, gave more general satisfaction than the assurance that Mr. Baldwin stood for a policy which would he at once generous and moderate and would practically satisfy all who were not hunting after a social revolution. At the head of the programme was the determination to improve industrial conditions. For our part, we are very far from thinking that the resolution of Mr. Baldwin in this matter has in any way relaxed, but there is a real risk that it may seem to have done so if there is a much longer delay in ratifying the Eight Hours Convention. When expectation has been on tip-toe for a long time, members of a Government who have gradually become aware of the existence of many difficulties which they did not foresee at first should remember that it is quite as important to produce the psychological effects of early action as to go on applying their noses to the grindstone of details. The promised Trade Union .legislation, though. it is designed chiefly to clarify the law, has let loose a swarm of rumours, mostly inspired by partisanship, about " attacking Labour " and " lowering the standards of the people." It is very important, then, that the Government, who are wholly innocent of any such intentions, should not give a handle either to malice or to genuine mis- understanding.
Let us glance at the history of the Eight Hours Convention. More than seven years have passed without the Convention being ratified. It is true that a great many intricate differences of custom in the various countries concerned have had to be investigated, but a year ago it seemed that nothing remained but that the industrial countries should meet and agree upon their interpretation of the facts. Accordingly, in March, 1926, the British Government summoned a Conference of Labour Ministers to meet in London. Mr. Baldwin had said a few weeks before the Conference met that if agreement was reached the Convention would be ratified by Great Britain. " But," he 'added, " we are not going to ratify -until we arc convinced that we all mean the same thing." The upshot of the Convention was the announcement that the participating countries did mean the same thing.
We took it for granted that ratification would then follow. As a matter of fact, Belgium is the only country which has ratified. France is ready to .ratify if Great Britain and Germany will do so ; Germany will ratify if all the other nations do so. The case Of Italy is not quite clear, though she seems to be friendly to the Convention. At all events, the Italian repre• sentative informed the International Labour Mee recently that the nine-hour day decree in Italy would not stand in the way of the pledges given in Washingtoq in 1919 and in London in 1926.
What, then, is causing delay in this country ? Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland explained in the , House of Commons on Monday that in his opinion more harm than good would be done if Great Britain ratified the Convention without being sure that there was precist, agreement as to the interpretation of various practices and various phrases. This was as much as to say that the announcement of last March that the London Conference had cleared up all these doubtful points was illusory. He took us back, in fine, to the stage before the Conference met. It is not necessary for our argument to deny that there was substance in what Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland said. There always is, and must be, substance in the objection that a host of ambiguities are revealed by any attempt to compare and correlate very different things. " Hours of work " in one country may mean the actual number of hours worked ; in another country it may include the time taken in going to work, and also meal-times. There is as much difference between nominal and real hours of work as there is between nominal and real wages. The phrase " overtime " conceals snags in all directions. There is, in some countries (as. the Times reminds us) a custom of allowing a worker to pay for his holidays by working extra time when he returns. Yet the working off of arrears in this - way is not regarded as overtime and is paid at the ordinary rate.
One might accumulate oddities and exceptions of this kind almost indefinitely. If the Government intend to give Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland time to make sure that nobody in any country disputes any of his definitions, ratification will come when we are all dead. It is said that if Great Britain ratified she would abide by her pledge in a literal sense, and that other countries, giving themselves the benefit of ambiguities, would have a statutory advantage over us in the stern competition for trade. That argument can be greatly over- emphasized. The Treaty of Versailles provides for dealing with defaulters under the new international arrangements, and, if ultimately the International Labour Office were powerless, the whole power of the League could be invoked to apply an economic boycott. It seems to us, then, that we have a great deal to gain and very little, indeed, to lose by making what is nowadays called a " gesture " and by setting a good example. About 96 per cent. 'of our industries already have a forty-eight hour week or less. We should not be courting a disadv=antage by pledging ourselves to what exists. British Labour, on its side, would regard ratification • as a real guarantee of security. It Is always the least progressive countries Which are the most disturbing -competitors, and by committing our- selVes we should also cause them to be committed. Industrial conditions among Civilized- people no doubt tend automatically to find their own level, like water, but the process is slow, and 'in these days of inter- national combinations the deliberate regulation 01 labour cannot be left out. Great Britain's part should be not to make excuses, however sincere and justifiabk in themselves, but to show the way.
Previous page
