LABOUR—" A MORE ENLIGHTENED POLICY."
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—As one who has followed the Labour question with great interest for many years, and who has been associated with men in large industrial undertakings in this and other countries, both in a practical and professional capacity, I have had the opportunity of studying the problem from an unbiassed standpoint as between master and men.
On making a comparison of past and present conditions I am strongly of opinion that the Limited Liability Act has had a great deal to do with the existing strained relations between employers and employed. Previous to this Act works were run by private individuals who had all their in- vestments in these concerns. Father and son followed on in control of the family interests, foremen and leading bands especially were known to their masters, who on going through the various departments made a passing word or inquiry, the result of which did much to promote a kindly spirit. Many of these works after the introduction of the Act became public limited companies, board of directors selected from outside the work staff were appointed, which boards were out of touch with the men. With such a change of management a com- plete severance of the old links and traditions took place. Many of these directors looked upon their men as so many labour- and profit-producing units, and conversely the men looked on the directors as capitalists and, possibly, task- masters exacting the lowest terms from them.
The power of democracy is growing, and cannot be stemmed, and in my opinion employers are taking a wrong course in not recognizing the unions. Let the masters assist the men in perfecting their organizations, thereby helping them to ap- point thoroughly good and respected delegates in whom the men might have every confidence. Then the masters can have competent and reliable men with whom to discuss matters and lay before them the facts and stress of foreign competis tion with which they have to deal. These representations could be transmitted to the men instead of the professional agitators, who often are quite out of sympathy with the masters in their struggle against foreign and other competi- tion. The agitators who do harm at the present moment are those who preach that capital is the enemy of labour, and, therefore, of the working man. Never was there a bigger fallacy. Neither can do without the other; they must go hand in hand.
While some are protesting against the Insurance Bill brought forward by the present Government, I think that this, when in full operation, will have the tendency to reduce strikes. The feeling is abroad on many occasions among the workers that when the trade unions' funds have grown to some extent the time has arrived when the men should have some of their own back in the way of strike pay, regardless of the misery and suffering which follow in its train. On the other hand, when the worker's insurance money is paid in to the Government purse—where it can only be drawn under stated conditions—and the men know that their funds and future are secure, employees then will not pay money in to their union funds to the same extent as at present. The capital, therefore, at their disposal will thereby be reduced.
My argument, therefore, is that the relations of masters and men will be better understood as the result of a more enlightened policy, and the trade unions will have become more thoroughly representative of the men's interests, and not largely, as at present, of the agitator. The relations of each will be seen to be perfectly mutual. There will then be hope of more settled conditions.—I am, Sir, &c.,
WILLIAM JAMES DOUGLAS, RLInstatech.E.,M.Inst.Nay.Archts,
1 Fenchurch Avenue, London, B.C.
Previous page
