6 JUNE 1914, Page 5

THE CASE FOR NON-UNIONISTS.

THE Times on Tuesday published two very illuminating 1 articles from Labour correspondents criticizing the Trade Union movement as at present organized. One deals with the position in the coal trade, and the other more generally with the strong opposition among working men to the present tendencies of Trade Unionism. Those tendencies may be summed up briefly as an attempt to compel every wage-earner to join a Trade Union. The method employed is to threaten strikes unless the employers will co-operate with the Trade Unionists in coercing the non-Unionists. Whether Trade Unionism is a good or a bad thing, this attempt at compulsion naturally creates a spirit of revolt. Englishmen do not love tyranny, under whatever form it presents itself or whatever pretext is put forward to justify it. The majority of men will submit to the coercion brought to bear upon them because they find submission easier than resistance, but a small minority will always hold out for conscience' sake, and these men by that very fact alone prove their moral value. Some of them may be skilled workmen capable of fighting their own economic battle without any assistance from a Trade Union; others may be men by no means prosperous, but imbued with a stolid British determination to resist tyranny. This nucleus of determined men constitutes a permanent obstacle to the policy of the Trade Unionist who wishes to bring every single wage-earner within the fold.

An equally serious obstacle; though more intermittent in character, is the reluctance of the majority of wage- earners to pay Trade Union subscriptions for purposes of doubtful utility. Both the writers in the Times boldly dispute the proposition that wage-earners necessarily gain by Trade Union action. At any rate, it is certain that a great many wage-earners are doubtful whether there is any gain at all. That doubt is quite intelligible when one compares the burdens which Trade Unionism involves with the benefits which it is supposed to have brought. The outside public only hears of the cost of strikes and the occasional gains secured. The wage-earner himself is much more conscious of the weekly demands made upon his purse, and of the levies which he has to meet frequently for exceptional purposes. He suspects that these burdens more than outweigh any advantage that Trade Unionism has brought him. This suspicion is immensely strengthened when one takes into account the fact that it is by no means proved that collective bargaining necessarily produces any better results to the wage-earner than would be secured by the silent operation of the law of supply and demand. This proposition used to be strongly urged by the late T. S. Cree, who in support of it pointed out how largely. domestic servants have improved their economic position in the past generation without the aid of any Trade Union. No sufficient answer to this contention has ever been given by the advocates of Unionism. But even admitting, for the sake of argument, that collective bargaining can justify its claim to have secured a definite improvement in the position of the wage- earner, it still remains doubtful whether that improvement has not cost more to obtain than it is worth. If we add to the regular weekly expense involved in Trade Union subscriptions the enormous waste of wages which every strike entails, it is possible that Trade Unionism might show a considerable adverse balance. This, at any rate, is the view of large numbers of non-Unionists, and the fact that they hold this view disposes of the ordinary Trade Unionist contention that the non-Unionist wishes to obtain the advantages of Unionism without paying for them. The non-Unionist replies that he does not believe in the advantages, and that is why he refuses to pay.

As regards the coal trade in particular, the definite statements made by the Times correspondent are of very considerable importance. He states that the men who have recently been forced to join the Unions will, in a short time, fall into arrears with their contributions, and that a new campaign will be necessary to force them to subscribe. Already, indeed, he says, many of these conscripts are in arrears, and there have been strikes at several collieries within the last few months. Yet up to 1909, before the policy of coercion was adopted, Trade Unionism on purely voluntary-lines was flourishing in South Wales. It began

to decline largely as the result of the capture of the Union by the political Socialists. Men left the Union because it had become a party political organization, and because large numbers of them believed that politics was doing their cause more harm than good. Their suspicion of Labour politics has been justified by results. The Miners' Eight Hours Act has proved a curse to the mining industry :—

" It has increased the hazards, reduced the earnings, and spoiled the leisure and social life of the miners. In the last two full. ealendar years before that Act came into force—in the last ten years before, for that matter—the deaths from mining accidents averaged four per working day. In the first two full years under the Act they averaged six per day. To make the industry fit the law working shifts had to be altered, dangerous methods and appliances had to be adopted ; haulage and windage had to be speeded up, and repair work was scamped. . . . In soma cases social and domestic customs were completely upset, and evening leisure seriously interfered with."

Very similar criticisms can be applied to the Minimum Wage Act. It is doubtful whether that Act has given satisfaction in any part of the country, and in many mining districts it is regarded as a curse. Another grievance of the reluctant Trade Unionist is the way in which the funds of the Union are used to provide outings for the " bosses." Conferences are always being held to discuss every kind of question, and these conferences, the expenses of which are borne by the Union funds, are generally arranged for distant but attractive places, such as Southport and Scarborough in the summer and London in the winter.

Moreover, the adoption of a political programme by the Trade Unionists has itself tended to destroy the case for Trade Unionism. If, as the Socialists constantly argue, the vote is so much more valuable an instrument of pro- gress than the strike, why should men bother to join a Union at all ? They can get all they want by the inexpensive process of voting. This consideration, which is urged as an abstract proposition by the Socialists, is strengthened by experience of the statutes recently passed. Government inspectors are now doing much the kind of work that Trade Union leaders used to do, and in addition a Government organization, the Labour Exchanges, is helping to provide workmen with those opportunities of finding employment which previously were furnished by the Trade Unions. On all these grounds the case for Trade Unionism grows weaker and the case against it grows stronger. At the same time, as the correspondents of the Times very sanely point out, any attempt on the part of the employing class to "crab" Trade Unionism would produce a reaction in its favour. The issues must be fought out among the men themselves. It is for them to decide, as a result of their own experience, whether they think Trade Unionism helps or hinders their progress.

Underlying the whole problem is the question of the efficiency of labour. In the long run it is impossible to increase wages unless there is an increased demand for labour, and that increased demand can only arise out of an increased production of wealth. Therefore, if wages any- where in the world are to rise, somewhere or other in the world there must be an increased efficiency of labour. That may be secured either by the invention of improved machinery, or by the application of more scientific methods of agriculture and manufacturing processes. Or it may be secured by the greater skill or more intelligent working of the wage-earner himself. This last factor is one which as a rule is too little regarded by employers and is deliberately placed on one side by wage-earners, and in this connexion it is interesting to note that latterly there has arisen in the United States a movement for the more scientific management of industrial concerns with a view to rendering the individual workman a more efficient worker. The immediate result is the possibility of increased wages. Here is a direction in which Trade Unionists, if they would, could effect, without the costly method of strikes, an enormous improvement in the economic position of their members. But this road is blocked by the absurd superstition that the increased efficiency of one workman means less employment for another—a fallacy which can only be answered, as we have answered it many times before, by pointing out that if this proposition were true it would follow that the best way of making work for everybody would be for nobody to do any work at all.