A Healthy Cow

By HARRY DOUGLASS*

1 is many years since I first visited Sweden. In the process of seeing the undoubted beauties of Stockholm, I asked to see the poorer districts and received the answer, 'Sweden has no slums.' This is true. At least, so far as I have seen and I have visited Sweden on a number of occasions for different reasons.

I mention this to take the interest from the narrow confines of trade unionism to the broad backcloth against which trade unions have their being and inspiration. All organisations react to this background just as human beings do. The Picture of a higher standard of life and social justice is much more readily portrayed by those four words than 'by pages of statistics, however clearly presented. Economic success is self- evident and the fact that workers share in the successes is beyond dispute. To argue that the Swedish population is comparatively small and that they have not had to endure two world wars is merely confirmation of the comparatively happy material position Sweden finds herself in and, at the same time, an unworthy excuse for our own comparative backwardness in material Progress and social justice in Britain.

Why is the industrial relations atmosphere so good in Sweden? Industrial trade unionism is Part of the answer. If the union structure is so divided that one Union covers all the workers in °Re industry, it is self-evident that demarcation disputes are eliminated automatically. It is true that even with one union for one industry there May occasionally be one section against another section, but there is usually sufficient control in the particular union to deal with such a dispute

constitutionally long before it blows up and stops the job.

MY own union believes in industrial trade unionism and has, in response to TUC urgings the past, not only handed over members to other unions, but has actually hived off two other uninns, refusing to believe, as my predecessor a! the time. Sir Arthur Pugh, put it, that sound trade unionism was achieved by merely counting heads. I mention this not in any spirit of corn- .Plaint that there was no reciprocation, but to indicate that neither industrial trade unionism or practical attempts to establish it are new in td his country. But does the achievement of in- ti trade trade unionism alone necessarily mean !thieving Swedish industrial relations standards? 4941Y American or German trade unionist or !InPloyer will tell you that it does not, though it earl help, as British coalminers will testify. t Strange

ly enough, in Sweden one fear seems

to be removed by industrial trade unionism- vhe craftsman's fear that his job may be de- ,alued if not hedged around with protective reences to prevent other grades of craftsmen, or tiven non-craftsmen, from doing work tradi- 4°11. ailY his. If fear is eliminated in any way, tiocertainly a step to better industrial rela- ls ns. The most severe critic of 'who does what' nas always appreciated the natural fear of a * Cieneral Secretary, the Iron and Steel Trades

craftsman that his job may be broken down into segments and his craft thereby destroyed. The reason for craft protection by craft unions in Britain excites some sympathy, even if the pro- tection methods attract criticism.

In answer to a question, the Swedes said their unions would not object to a welder putting up a platform to do his welding, even though the erecting of the platform was a carpenter's job (assuming, of course, that no carpenter was avail- able at the time). Further questioned, they said they would not object to a non-craftsman doing this job if he were capable. They would, of course, insist that the rate for the job be paid to whoever did it. Protecting the craft meant seeing that the rate was never undercut; and there was no fear of this with Swedish industrial trade unionism.

My own union, the Iron and Steel Trades Con- federation, was actually formed in 1917 from the various unions in the industry at the request of the British Government, who said that to win the war it was necessary to talk to the steel- workers and the multiplicity of unions made this difficult, as the steelworkers could never be made really articulate through many voices from many unions. The experiment, though incomplete, was extremely effective. The Swedish trade unions have carried this a step further and made all the trade unions articulate, speaking through the one voice of the Labour Organisation (the equivalent of the TUC), not for the purpose of winning wars, but to win full employment and economic stability—a strangely elusive pair in countries en- joying democratic freedom.

There is, of course, no advantage in being articulate if this merely means intoning oppo- sition. The LO has discussions and ultimately comes to agreement with SAF (the employers' organisation) on matters concerning wages and conditions in all industries. The role of the trade unions is positive; their position as industrial partners is accepted by employers and Govern- ment. No National Incomes Commission here!

But do not imagine that this is a powerful machine which has solved all Swedish wage problems. It is a finely balanced system where experienced men in authority tread most care- fully in dealing with human problems, careful, for example, to leave many 'payment by result' negotiations to regional negotiators so that men who achieve productivity see it quickly reflected in their wage packets. This, of course, leads to some 'wage drift,' but the Swedes are intensely practical, and make use of economic theories as indicated by their practical experience rather than let economic theories run them.

Although this power to negotiate locally is accepted, the power to strike is not. Indeed, no affiliated union is allowed to call a strike of more than 3 per cent of its members without per- mission of the LO secretariat. Unofficial strikes are virtually laughed out of court as they are never successful. This does not mean there are no unofficial strikes in Sweden; emotional resent- ment flares up as quickly there as here. But the futility of emotional economics is a lesson long since learned in Sweden. Similarly, restrictions on employers' lock-outs are imposed by the SAF, which means that tribal industrial warfare has been superseded by national law, not so much in the form of legislation as the freely accepted rules of the game.

Now, please, in our own 'free for all' private enterprise economy, don't attribute all blame to British trade unions. When the going has been good, not only has the industrial cow been overtnilked too often but the private enterpriser has been commended for his business acumen in doing it. In Sweden they have a society for the protection of industrial cows which they call a Social Democratic Government, which has been in operation for thirty-one years. This 'society' does not care a hoot whether it has nationalised or private enterprise industry, but 13 always prepared to introduce nationalisation if private enterprise is unenterprising. After thirty-one years it has made the astonishing (sic) discovery that if the industrial cow is not over- milked It gives better milk and then more milk, so there is enough for everyone, even trade unionists. They even believe everyone may now have cream, and if everyone has enough, who bothers if occasionally a few drink a little (not too much) more than is good for them, especi- ally if they are the fools at the top getting ulcers doing executive jobs? All of which indicates that a healthy industrial cow is important to government, employers and trade unionists.

Now let us see where we were. Oh! yes. Can British trade unionists learn from Sweden. No, surely, that is wrong. Can British industry learn from Swedish industry? That's better, because the fact is that the Swedes have discovered and put into practice the theory that no govern- ment, employer or worker can achieve economic stability in isolation, and all accept the respon- sibility which is indivisible from authority.

There is much, therefore which we in Britain can learn from Sweden, but can a Tory Govern- ment learn from a Social Democratic Govern- ment, or would a Labour Government be a more apt pupil? And what of industry? Can the trade unions and employers unlearn the lessons that private enterprise has taught them? The answer, I venture to say, is in the negotiating chamber. There must be a willingness on the part of both sides to leave their prejudices and rigid altitudes at the door and agreements must be honoured on both sides. Unofficial strikes too often arise from unofficial bribes which obscure the issue of long-term security with misunderstanding and confusion.

'On the packet it said it's far the birdies.'