THE NEW RAILWAY DISPUTE.
JUST when it was generally believed that the railway workers had settled down in comparative content- ment Mr. Thomas informs the world that there is another great struggle ahead. We cannot admire Mr. Thomas's ways ; he seems continually to blow hot and cold, to encourage unrest and to denounce it according to the character of the audience he is addressing. Moreover, he seems frequently to be the victim of his own readiness and facility of speech—he is always prompt with an answer which, in his own opinion at least, demolishes opposition, but on examination is found to contain no serious solution of any problem. Although we dislike Mr. Thomas's habit of trying to make our flesh creep at a time of national crisis when unruffled skins are desirable, we are bound to say that when he demands that railway workers should be directly represented in the management of the railways he has a great deal of reason on his side. In principle we feel compelled to support his claim.
The trouble arose out of the statement recently issued by the Railway Companies' Association. This statement criticized the proposals in the White Paper published by the Government last June. We need not go into the statement of the Railway Companies' Association as a whole, but must fix our attention upon the particular point which has excited the indignation of Mr. Thomas. The Association said that they would strenuously oppose the suggestion that " workers elected by workers should be appointed to the Railway Boards." They considered that the proposal was " quite unjustifiable and wrong in principle, and that from every point of view it is objectionable." They argued that the situation created by such appointments would be intolerable because discipline would be gravely affected. " No servant in a subordinate position should be placed at any time in authority over his official chief." And apart from the question of dis- cipline, the Association held that it was wrong that the Government, while expressly refusing to accept any financial responsibility, should impose upon railway companies methods " which radically affect the constitution of the Companies and which interfere with the right of shareholders to choose their own directors." The Asso- ciation; however, recognized that advantages might result from consultation with the workers. With this object in view they proposed that Committees should be formed composed of : (1) Officers to be nominated by the Board. (2) Workers to be elected by and from among the workers either sectionally or generally and in such proportion as may be thought advisable. (3) A Secretary appointed by the Board. These Committees, acting under the chair- manship of a Director, would make recommendations to the Board.
This counter-proposal of the Companies' Association, backed up, as we believe it has been in effect, by the Chambers of Commerce and the British Federation of Industries, does not by any means satisfy the railwaymen. They declare that they were promised an effective share in the management by the Government, and they do not mean to rest until they have got it. Now it seems to us that if the White Paper proposal for bringing workers into the management of the railways is of such a kind that the ordinary investor would refuse to put his money into railways—on the ground that the shareholders lose the right of choosing their directors—some plan might be found which would meet this objection or at all events relieve it of its cogency. The raising of objections ought not to mean that the idea of associating railway workers in the management must be dropped. Railway work is a peculiar industry, and there is no doubt that men engaged in it, even men in the lower grades, do acquire a special knowledge of the ins and outs of railway adminis- tration. We were much struck by an address delivered before the London Co-partnership Congress on October 28th by Sir George Gibb, formerly General Manager of the North-Eastern Railway. Referring to the scheme of the Ministry of Transport described in the White Paper of last June, he said :- " In that scheme it is suggested that each of the grouped railways should have a Board of Management consisting of 21 members, of whom 12 members should represent shareholders, 3 should be co-opted to represent officials, and 6 should be elected by the workers as their representatives. It is not clear whether this Board of Management is suggested in substitution for the Board of Directors. That is the interpretation which has been given to it in many quarters, but I cannot believe that to be the intention. It seems to me inconceivable that share- holders should be deprived of the right to have a Board of pirectors to whom they entrust all their powers as owners and their interest as proprietors. If shareholders were not able to do this, it seems very unlikely that anyone would care to become a shareholder or to invest capital in a railway under- taking. I doubt also whether the workers would desire that their representatives should be members of the Board of Directors, whose function is the general supervision of the undertaking on behalf of the proprietors. The workers, as I understand their aims, would have no use for, nor would their representatives have the necessary training and experience for, the guidance and direction of general policy and finance. What they want is a share in the affairs of actual management, and anything else would not, and should not, satisfy them."
It will be seen that Sir George Gibb objected to the Ministry of Transport's plan for familiar reasons, but he by no means disapproved of the principle of letting the railway workers have a share in the management. Let us quote him again :— " I doubt whether any general system of profit-sharing would be attractive to railway workers, and it would only lead to disappointments if attempts were made to developon railways that element of the idea of co-partnership unless the desire for it emanated from the workers. But there is no industry in which partnership in management would have more beneficial effects or be more easy to arrange. Every man in railway employment should be encouraged and assisted to feel that he has some recognised share of responsibility for the soundness and prosperity of the undertaking and the efliefency of the public services which it exists to render. This can best be secured by adopting and giving practical effect in the organization to the principles of co-partnership. . . . Any scheme would be worse than useless unless it gave representatives of the workers positions in which they would have full access to information in regard to the business of the undertaking, a recognized status and a real share in discussions and decisions in regard to all questions affecting the welfare of the workers. Experience would show in what way the duties of the representatives would best be allocated, but an essential condition of any scheme must be that under it the workers should be able to feel that their representatives had a real share in management in regard to everything directly affecting their interest and were fully recognized as responsible partners. The organization which I would favour would be the constitution of a Committee as part of the regular organization consisting of representatives of the Directors, the General Manager, the heads of departments and representatives of the workers. On this Committee the workers' representatives would have access to and would acquire knowledge and experience of all the business details of railway management, •and I believe that they would be most useful members."
Sir George Gibb has there spoken, as it seems to us, words of real wisdom.
The most fatal policy for the railway managers to adopt is to say that they will never give in and then to give in. This happened in connexion with the railway Trade Unions. The managers refused to recognize them and subsequently did recognize them. Such proceedings give the appearance of weakness and impair confidence. It is true that the recognition of the Unions was forced on the railways by the Government, and probably some managers cherish the belief that what they have always regarded as a subversive policy in a quasi-public service can be removed at some future date. But we do not ourselves think that the present recognition of the Unions can ever be repudiated or that it would ever be desirable that it should be. The experience is worth bearing in mind now that a similar issue has to be decided. The injury to discipline through the recognition of the Unions has not been appreciable, if indeed there has been any at all ; nor should we fear an injury to discipliile through allowing the workers to be represented in the management. Naturally, it would not do to allow a minor .official to lord it over a higher official, but surely the solution is to take the workers' representatives completely out of their old employment and make them real directors. While acting as directors they would have the status and authority and, we might add, the salaries of directors. The great need is to put the workers' representatives in a position where they would have the fullest possible access to all the facts. Nothing is so sobering, nothing is so instructive, nothing opens the eyes of ignorance so wide as to know the whole truth.
Many railway workers who criticize the management have no conception of the difficulty of obtaining the necessary money to run the railways when an insufficient interest is paid on the capital. They have never worked out, with all the figures at their disposal, what it costs a company to put a single new man at work. They are supremely unaware of the great addition to the total expenditure of a company when quite an insignificant addition is made to wages. Nothing but good, so far as we can see, would come of forcing such facts upon the attention of the men's representatives. At present there is something of a deadlock. The railway companies are in revolt, with a good deal of reason, against the Govern- ment proposal; and the railwaymen, led by Mr. Thomas, are in revolt, also with a good deal of reason, against the suggestion that the White Paper proposal should be abandoned. Clearly what is wanted is a new proposal. Negotiation should not be difficult.
Previous page
