Co-operation in Industry
THE answer of the principal employers' organizations to the Report of the Melchett-Turner .Conferenee was a dire disappointment, but no one ought to run away with the idea that the movement towards peace in industry has been brought to a dead stop." On the contrary, though ground that might have been gained has not been made good, the whole movement has made an advance which would have been impossible a year or two ago. Natural chagrin, caused by the blighting of hopes, must not blind us to what has been accoin plished.
Lord Melchett and Mr. Turner have not Written their Report in vain. Whatever may happen in the immediate future the Report cannot be obliterated ; it stands as a mark in industrial politics, and a very important one, too. It would be impossible to say that the responsibility which rests on both employers and employed to continue the progress is greater on the one side than on the other. Public opinion undoubtedly expects the employers to consent to nothing less than a reconstitution of the relations in industry ; but it also recognizes that, though rebuffed for the moment, Labour has no sort of excuse for flying into a tantrum, and vowing that it is useless to carry on further discussions with such people as the employers. That is not the way of peace-loving men. Peace would not be such an incomparable. prize, as it is, if it were to be easily won, or if misunderstandings did not characteristically pave the paths to it.
The answer to the Melchett-Turner proposals " was issued in the names of the Federation of British Industries and the National Confederation of Employers' Organiza- tions. The letter, addressed to the Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, begins by saying that the National Confederation and the Federation would welcome an opportunity of a conference with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, at which they could discuss " matters of common interest to British industry." Two facts must be noted in this statement. The first is that the proposal to join in a discussion with the General Council has never been made before ; the second is that this significant proposal is given the place of honour in the first paragraph of the letter.
It will be remembered that when there was a proposal in 1927 that the two principal employers' organizations should meet the General Council it was turned down as impossible. It was said that the constitutions of the organizations did not permit of their undertaking such discussions. Shortly afterwards Lord Melchett, acting unofficially, suggested that he and some of his fellow-employers, who were in the van of the progressive movement in industry, should meet the General Council and draw up a scheme, which might or might not be adopted later by employers in general. All that has happened, then, is that the employers' organizations have rejected the scheme, but have taken a step which they would not have taken before Lord Melchett and Mr. Turner pointed the way.
The employers' organizations in their letter go on to say that at a conference with the General Council they could explain their objections to the National Industrial Council proposed in the Melchett-Turner Report. The letter does not mention the other Melchett-Turner proposal, that besides a National Industrial Council there should be Conciliation Boards, but no doubt the reference to the National Industrial Council was meant to cover the whole Melchett-Turner scheme. Nei-t, the employers point out that the Confederation and the Federation are distinct bodies with different functions, the Confederation dealing with labour questions and the Federation with economic and commercial. questions. Unfortnnately, it is added that each organization, after reviewing the situation tioni its own point of view, Caine independently to the conchision that the Melchett- TUrner Report was not acceptable. The rest of the letter consists of a quite friendly pressure upon the General Council to enter into further consultation. The employers are
" Conscious of the importance of doing everything in their power to further the promotion of industrial peace in British industry, and the cordial invitation extended to your General Council to meet representatives of the Confederation and of the Federation is made in the hope that the discussions will be such as to help forward a better mutual understanding."
As the true road to peace is always based on genuine attempts to understand what is disagreeable, or what seems on the face of it unreasonable, let us try to put ourselves inside the mind of an employer who sincerely believes that the Melchett-Turner scheme would not work and is dangerous. The employer of our imagina- tion would probably argue somewhat as follows :- " A National Industrial Council has been proposed, but it is obvious that it would be national only in name unless all the recognized organizations of employers Were represented On it. We employers hope that some machinery for permanent co-operation will be possible', but it is absurd to accuse us of being the enemies of peace because we have turned down a plan drafted by a conference in which we were not even represented. Many of the employers who have rejected 'the Melchett- Turner Report have, in their own indtistries, machinerSr for co-operation and conciliation which is working extraordinarily well. Then Lord Melchett comes along unofficially, and in his big way presents a modern—a too modern—plan for rationalizing everything and everybody. This might easily mean the "sweeping away of existing methods which have amply stood the test of time. You may say that we objectors are merely advocating sectionalism instead of a comprehensive treatment, but' you cannot blame us for being cautious: The issues at stake are too large for recklessness. If the General Council will listen to us, we shall try to convince them that we do want peace in industry, but that the proposed scheme is not the right way."
We do not ourselves accept that argument. But at least we 'feel sure of this, that if the General Council has any idea of how peace is made it will not allow its members to beat up a campaign of denunciation against the employers' organizations, but will quietly accept the invitation to a conference.
At that conference there will be an opportunity for the General Council, such as it has never had before, to convince the employers, fully and officially represented, that Labour stands by the cardinal proposal of a National Industrial Council and Conciliation Boards. When that plain issue is understood public opinion, which has a way of being decisive in the long run, will come to bear upon the whole subject. The conference will be official ; there will be no question of a few employers acting on their own account, or of the General Council acting as it did at the Melchett-Turner Conference, " without prejudice." The conference will be conducted in the full knowledge that it will determine industrial relations for many years. And the public will probably remind the employers that pedantic conservatism is the surest way of swinging the Trades Union Congress back to those methods of the " left " which it not long ago deserted,
Previous page
