Railway Wages
Finance
THE National Railway Tribunal has now concluded the hearing of the claims of the Railway Unions for resfOla-, tion of the balance of their wage cuts, and at the end of the hearing the Chairman, Sir Arthur Salter, stated that there was a good deal of complicated matter to be considered and it would, therefore, probably be some 'time before the Tribunal was able to arrive at a decision.
In the interests both of the claimants and of railway stockholders, and, indeed, it might be said in the interests of Labour and Capital as a whole, the decision will be awaited with keen interest, and it is confidently, 'expected that it will be delivered in such terms as to appeal to the sense of justice both on the part of wage- earners and the railway stockholders.- At the end of the hearing Sir Arthur Salter asked Mr. W. Stott, who represented the Railway Clerks' Association, whether he really desired to put his case as high as saying that there should be no reduction in the standard rate of wages until the return of capital reached zero. Replying, Mr. Stott said that there were instances of small railways ip this country and in Ireland where there was nothing at all for the shareholders, and they had agreed to substantial cuts in pay and general conditions. Sir Arthur Salter suggested that if in the society in which we lived we went to the point where it was said that' there should be no variation in wages until the return on capital had reached zero, the effects might be disastrous, and Mr. Stott then said that, remembering the words " the society in which we live," he agreed. It is a little difficult to gather from this somewhat cryptic remark whether Mr. Stott was intending to suggest that it was the capitalists' system that was at fault or whether he agreed that the position of stockholders called for some consideration.
INDUSTRIES CREATED BY CAPITAL.
I cannot help feeling that some of the arguments put forward in the course of the hearings before the Tribunal have been somewhat beside the mark. In common With other of the great industries of the country which employ the greater part of the wage-earners, the railway industries have been created out of capital, which in these modern days means that large and small capitalists alike have contributed out of their savings either to their original creation, or to fresh capital which , may have been required from time to time to keep them going, It seems, therefore, somewhat contrary to the principles of equity in the situation arising out of the present demands of railway workers, that such an argument as that presented during the recent hearings by the General Secretary of the Railway Clerks' Association, should have been put forward.
A CURIOUS ARGUMENT.
To meet the complete demands of the workers some- thing like £3,000,000 annually is understood to be involved, an amount which, if conceded, would, it is believed, preclude any prospect of early resumption of dividends to Ordinary stockholders who have gone dividendless for many years. Now these demands, or the demands in part, may or may not be. justified.by all the facts of the situation into which the National Tribunal has presumably been enquiring, and it is at least some- thing to the good, that the Railroad Management and the workers alike have apparently agreed to abide by the decision_ of this Tribunal. Mr. Stott, however, in the course of his observations remarked that the plain question before the Tribunal was whether the railway staff should give up £3,000,000 a year to the shareholders. That, he considered, was the plain question at issue, and he is reported by the organ of the Labour Party as saying : We consider that the money would be spent to greater advantage by the railway staff than by the shareholders, and we do not think workers can be expected to be sympathetic to the shareholders." • - • • • THE SMALL STOCKHOLDER.
,Just what course of action the shareholders are sup- posed to have pursued depriving them-of the sympathy of the railway workers is as difficult to comprehend as it would be to perceive why the stockholders should not have .sympathy with the wage-earners, who by their labOurs contribute to the welfare of the industry just as the stockholders have ministered to it by supplying capital. In fact, if there is to be no reasonable sym- pathetic bond between Labour and Capital, industry in this country is indeed in a parlous state, for it is only on the belief that workers and shareholders have common interests that progress in industry is possible. From time to time, of course, there must arise problems and even disputes such as those which are now engaging the attention of the National Railway Tribunal, but I suggest that those problems will never be settled upon such a line of reasoning as that which is put forward in the sug- gestion that those demanding increased wages could spend the money better than if it went into the hands of shareholders, setting aside, as it does, all considerations of such -questions of the direction in which the amounts in question should in equity be apportioned.
It may be, of course, that when we consider the labours performed and all the circumstances of the case, the demands of the wage-earners should be conceded, but I think that those railway shareholders who may have to continue without receiving any dividends may well ask that decisions should not be governed by suggestions that the money in question could be spent better by the *age-earners than by the shareholders. It needs no stretch of imagination to believe that among the latter class are to be found many comparatively poor people to whom the loss of railway dividends means hardship, even amounting to privation. These individuals may not have
(Continued on page 180.)
"Finance -
(Continued from-page 179.)
Unions to represent their ease, but they may perhaps have their own views as to whether_ theyor the wage-earners could find the best use for the moneys involved in the
Previous page
