Conciliation in Industry
THE Trades Union Congress of this year may be a turning point in industrial history. We do not envy any man his responsibility, whether he be wage- earner or employer, who says a word to hinder the tentative approaches which are being made towards industrial peace.
Although nothing definite has yet been done it is evident that the General Council of the Trades Union Congress has been thinking things over. It has noted that the old militant policy, the policy of class conscious- ness and resistance to "Capitalism," has not only failed, but has left the trade unions starved for money, reduced in numbers and bankrupt in policy. What, then, is to follow ? It is a wonderfully good sign that of its own volition the Trades Union Congress warms to the idea that there should be direct negotiations between employers and employed. The word " co-operation " was laughed at two years ago ; now it is handed about as a motto of hope. A good deal must have gone on behind the scenes. Before the Congress opened the General Council had made up its mind that a spectacular policy such as that of 1919, which involved not only employed and employers, but the State and all the politicians, is now hopeless. After all, the chief lesson of the General Strike was that the confusion of political and industrial questions was fatal. The new idea is that there should be discussions between representatives of the Trades Union Congress and the National Con- federation of Employers' Organizations.
Mr. George Hicks, in his presidential speech to the Congress, blew hot and cold. That was only to be expected. Labour speakers find it even more difficult than most politicians—and that is saying a good deal —to break with their past. They have a pride which may be traced in their timidity. They are terribly afraid of what may be said against them and about their inconsistency. As Mr. Hicks has long been a member of the left wing, it is all the more significant that he should have admitted as much as he did. It is true that his abuse of capitalism and of the Government was as full-blooded as ever, but in an address of this kind one must judge the speech by its general tendency. Judged in this way the speech came down pointedly on the side of conciliation and collaboration with the employers. How seriously Mr. Hicks intended his words was proved by the manner in which he discussed the very methods of co-operation.
This part of the speech was something much better than vague, though worthy, generalization. Mr. Hicks informed the workers that if they were to win a share in the control of industry they must fit themselves for problems of management and administration. It would be impossible to conceive sounder advice. One of the reasons why wage-earners have had so little share in directing business is that they have always minimized the importance of the function of directing. There was a very good illustration of this during the strikes at Milan which preceded Fascism. The mechanics in the motor works turned out the whole of the managing staffs and for a week or two carried on gaily with the orders which they had in hand. But when those orders had been exhausted there was no more work to do. The men who made the contracts, the designers and all the other members of the black-coated staffs had dis- appeared and there was nobody who could take their place. The mechanics had learned their lesson and the whole of the directing staffs were Quickly invited back. There has been no reason for many years past why British wage-earners should not have been directing factories and companies for themselves if they had been able to do so. Ever since large works have been owned by limited companies it has been possible for trade unions gradually to buy up, at least in the case of many com- panies, the voting power which would make them masters of the situation. The fact that they never did so suggests that they did not feel confident of their ability to run the companies and that the risk to the trade-union funds was regarded as too great to be accepted. Although this is an answer to the wage-earners' complaint that they have "never had a chance," it is not, we fully admit, an answer to the complaint that in British industry as a whole the wage-earner is not regularly given the opportunities which he ought to have. In the United States there is no such impenetrable barrier between the hand-workers and the management as there is nearly everywhere in this country.
It ought to be possible for every wage-earner who has the aptitude and brains to work his way up to the highest position in a company. Again, there should be means of making all the wage-earners acquainted with the facts about the business. If accounts were more accessible, the workers would understand as they have never understood before the difficulties with which the management has to contend and the risks which have to be taken.
A very important means of identifying the interests of the " capitalist " and the wage-earner is the creation of special workers' shares. The ideal for industry in this country is that every worker should be a capitalist. He should have some "stake," as the old-fashioned phrase is, in his work. Payment by results is not possible in every industry, but when it is possible it can be applied to the enormous advantage of every wage-earner, pro- vided that there is an agreement with the employers that when the rates have been fixed they shall not be tampered with except at rare intervals and by common consent. One of the worst enemies of industrial peace in this country has been the employer who has cut down the rates when he thought a few men were "earning too much."
Mr. Hicks, becoming almost enthusiastic at last on the subject of a constructive policy for trade unionism, said that the unions were "only just at the beginning of the constructive period." We trust that it may be so. Mr. Bevin and Mr. J. H. Thomas, though they showered abuse on Mr. Baldwin, carried on the good work at the Congress on Tuesday. They readily admit that the interests of Capital and Labour are the same. Even if one day there is to be Socialism it will be much more easily installed if it takes over a going, concern and not a heap of ruins. Thus from everybody's point of view it is better that there should be co-operation. What is true of international relations is just as true of domestic industry. In war nowadays everybody loses, no matter who may have " won " on the battlefield. A generation ago a strike against one or two employers did no great harm and may have been the only way for the men to assert themselves. To-day a strike involving one of the large industries affects every other industry in the land. At the end of it all the Inca, if they win, will have got a nominal rise of a few shillings and will have suffered a real loss of many more shillings. Nobody can win. The advantage of industrial co- operation is that nobody can lose.
Previous page
