THE END OF THE STRIKE.
IT may, we think, be assumed that the engineering strike, which has lasted nearly five months, and has been fought with such stubborn resolution on both sides, has come to an end. Unions and Federations of employers do not agree to a conference unless they mean to make peace. On the surface, no doubt, all that has been agreed upon is a conference to discuss differences, but practically the conference will settle the terms upon which the men are to go back to work. It is to be hoped that those terms will be a real solution of the conflicting forces now at work, and that neither side will be content to patch up a temporary agreement. What is wanted now is to get down to the rock and build a really strong structure, not to be content with a temporary arrangement. Nominally, the strike and lock-out has been about hours. In reality it has had much deeper causes. If the dispute is stripped to the bone it comes to this. The masters declare that the Engineers' Union interferes so greatly in the conduct of their business that it is becoming impossible to carry on the engineering industry at a profit. The Union officials, on the other hand, declare that they do not unduly interfere, or rather they say that they have a right to interfere as long as their interference does not pass a certain point. They argue that their undoubted right to sell their labour collectively on such terms as seem good to them must and does give them a voice in determining not merely what the price of their labour shall be, but also what are the conditions under which it shall be applied. If they have a right to collec- tive bargaining as to the conditions of labour gene- rally, they may bargain (1) as to what price they Asa work for, (2) as to what shall be their hours, and (3) as to what rules shall be employed in applying their labour in combination with machinery or in association with other workmen. The men say, in fact : We must have a share in determining whether three or two men or one man ought to work such and such a, machine. The master may say that one man can work it perfectly well ; but if we consider that the work when done by one man is too arduous or too disagreeable, or at any rate for some reason undesirable, we have a right to claim that no man shall be called upon to work that machine except in company with another man.'
In theory, there can be no doubt that in a free country men may argue thus collectively or individually, and no one can say them nay. They can say it, just as the masters may say : We will not allow our machine to be worked by two men, or we will not employ red-haired men.' But though either masters or men can in theory make any conditions they like, in practice they cannot do so, for they cannot make conditions destructive to the industry. The masters cannot impose conditions which would drive away all good workmen, and the workmen cannot make conditions which would render the industry profitless. Granted, then, that the industry is to continue, the proper way to put the question is not, Are the workmen claiming to interfere in the management of the industry ? but, Is their interference in the conditions of work such as is hkely to injure business and destroy profits? If it is, then that sort of interference must cease,—in the masters' interest, in the public interest, and in the men's interest, for otherwise they would be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Unless there is some better answer to the case put forward by the masters than any we have seen, we fear that the local officials of the Engineers' Union have of late overstepped the limits of interference, and have at- tempted to interfere with the management of the industry in a way which must ruin it, and so render it necessary for the masters to say : 'We can only either get rid of this interference or give up our work.' Here is one of the cases put forward by the Employers' Federation :—" This firm were compelled by the Amalgamated Society of Engineers to hand over two copying lathes to two turners, and each lathe was rated at 358. per week =70s. for the two. Since the strike, a labourer has been advanced and put in charge of both machines, from which he, singly, is getting more work than the two Amalgamated Society of Engineers' men produced. The labourer receives 24s. per week, which was a large increase on his former wage. Result, a saving of 46s. per week, and a larger output. This case is also an instance of interference with the working of machines. The Society compelled a skilled man to be put on to each of two machines, which can be easily and capably worked by a single ' handy ' man." It is very difficult to believe that this story is not an example of the attempt to restrict the use of machinery, or rather to hedge machinery round with such restrictions that its employ- ment shall not be profitable. The Unions, that is, say ' We will not prevent you introducing new machinery, but if you do we must insist that there shall be no reduc- tion in the number of men employed.' That is, of course, the old anti-machinery feeling, to which the answer is that no labour-saving machinery was ever produced, or will be produced, which did not in the end increase instead of diminishing the demand for human labour. Another example of Union interference is even more regrettable:—"A London firm had an apprentice working between two Union men, all on similar machine tools. The apprentice was 'interviewed' by these two men because he finished three heads (part of a stamp mill) in his day as against their two each.' The lad consulted his father as to the choice he should make between cheat- ing his employers out of one-third of his work and a broken head. The father having reported the affair to the principal, the lad was removed from his delicate situation and put on other work, and the two Unionists were left to do their minimum of work." Here is another example of the alleged desire of the Union to restrict the output of work :—" A Clyde firm report that they have bad several instances of interference by shop stewards. One of the stewards repeatedly checked one of the turners for turning out too much work, and the firm say they were aware that among the majority there was an agreement to do as little as possible. Any young man they started at anything under what the Amalgamated Society of Engineers were pleased to call the minimum wage' was force,d to leave the shop, however well satisfied he might be himself with the wage." If this story is authentic, it is obvious that in the shop in question work was being carried on under conditions which must in the end mean ruin.
But, it may be argued, it is incredible that the Union really acts deliberately on the lines indicated in these "examples" of Union interference. The Unions, it will be urged, must and do know that the men are in reality partners with the masters, and that it cannot be to their interests to destroy the engineering industry. Strange as it may seem, we fear that the men and their leaders have lost sight of the partnership between themselves and the employers. The Engineers' Union has, we fear, been pressing its claims to interfere, not so much with the practical aim of getting better conditions for the in- dividual worker, as in obedience to certain abstract ideas which it considers will help on the cause of Labour. That is, the pressing forward of a semi-Socialistic ideal has been substituted for the legitimate work of collective bargaining. The Union naturally enough, and in theory rightly enough, holds that it is a sort of corporation, and that it must use its powers for the benefit of all its members, whether actually at work or not. This means that it must do its best to find work, must increase as much as possible the number of men at work. In plain words, the Union conceives it to be its duty to obtain work for the greatest number of men. That, as we have said, is natural enough and reasonable enough per se. Unfortunately the Union has gone the wrong way about. doing what it wants to do. Instead of trying to keep the maximum of men at work by developing trade and industry, by encouraging capital to come in and compete to employ labour, by cheapening production in every possible way, and so increasing the demand for the product; instead, that is, of doing everything possible to keep the 'bidding lively for labour, it has adopted an entirely opposite -policy. It has acted, to begin with, as if the demand for engineering work were a fixed and permanent quantity,— a great bowl of soup. Its first object has been to preside -over the bowl and see that every one all round got a helping. When there was not enough work for all the members of the Union to be employed, it would appear— we cannot, of course, do more than guess at the details of the process—that the Union argued as follows We must increase the number of men employed. Now, the work to be done being constant, if one hundred men who are now working nine hours only do eight hours a day, there will be room for twelve more men. It is clear, then, that the economic policy of the Union should be a, change -to shorter hours. Next, the work to be done being con- stant, it is clear that if certain rapid workers do in three hours what other men take six to do, the total work will be done too quickly, and the masters will be compelled either to keep on men who are doing nothing, or else to discharge some of their hands. Hence, we must insist on even work, and on no man doing more than his fair share. Lastly, machines displace human labour. Therefore, we -must only allow machines to be worked under conditions • which will not displace labour.' Thus, without meaning to injure the masters, and merely through the adoption • of sophistical notions in regard to the possibility of -keeping the demand for labour constant, the advisers of the men have come to regard the enforcement of -shorter hours, working at the pace of the average man, and the limitation of machinery as necessary principles of action. Of course the result has been, and must be, disastrous to the engineering industry. Until the work- men, not nominally but really, get it out of their heads that work can be " made " there can be no satisfactory solution • of the Labour question. As our readers know, we believe in the need for Unions, and should regard their destruc- tion as extremely dangerous. What we do want them to see, and there will not be any real peace till they do see it, is the fact that the way to raise wages and improve the conditions of labour is to increase the total profits of industry and so increase the demand for labour. It is by increasing, not by limiting, the output that the workers -will benefit. If the men work with vigour and diligence, if they regard the machines as helpers, not rivals, and if they help to decrease the cost of production, the men must share in the increased prosperity. They will gain shorter 'hours and higher wages. If, on the other hand, the -men increase the cost of production it is as certain as that the sun will rise that they will decrease the de- - mand for their labour and so shorten their pay. This is an economic fact, from which there is no escape. The men in the cotton trade have realised the fact. They may have causes of complaint, good and bad, and may fight with the masters, but at least they realise their . partnership, and know that it is to their interest to use the best machinery, and get out of it the very maximum of productive power. They have learnt that the less you make of a thing the less there is of that thing to go round when pay-day comes,—for it is out of that thing, expressed in pounds, shillings, and pence, that the wages are paid. Let us hope that the engineers will realise this -fact also. Unless we are much mistaken, they have learnt . more than they admia during the progress of the strike.
Previous page
