THE GREAT PARTNERSHIP OF INDUSTRY.
SINCE we appealed in our last two issues for a clear statement of the employers' case in the engineering lock-out a pamphlet has been issued in the name of the Engineering and the National Employers' Federations. It is entitled " Maintenance of Right of Employers to Exercise Managerial Functions," and as a statement it is as concise and as able as we could have wished for. Here, at last, is something to go upon. We must congratulate the Federations on their wisdom in taking the public • into their confidence, for, as we have said on previous occasions, the public is the third party to every dispute and in the last resort has the deciding voice. At the same time, we notice in the Democrat, which speaks in a very interesting way every week for sane Trade Unionism, an authoritative statement of the men's point of view. This is written by Mr. A. IL Smethurst, the General Secre- tary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and it also gives us something more definite to go upon. As the result of reading these two statements we have come to the conclusion that the engineering dispute is capable of being settled quickly, and ought to be settled quickly. It will be as much to the discredit of the two parties as • it will be disastrous to the nation if this dispute is allowed to drag on.
' The truth of the matter is that both sides conscientiously believe that they are in the right. What they arc con- tending about extends deep, not only into the permanent relations of employers and manual workers, but into human nature itself. How can it possibly be supposed that a protracted lock-out ending in the " defeat " of one side or the other will settle such problems as these ? Forms of words may be drawn up and may be agreed upon as the result of the trial of strength, but the relations of employers and men will remain as full of pitfalls as they were before and human nature will certainly not have been changed. The fact is that the only solution of the present trouble is common sense and good will. Without these qualities nothing will ever be settled and a lock-out, however long it lasts, will help nobody. Suppose that the men were beaten. They would return to. work after accepting certain terms. But the possi- bilities fbr making mischief—and, of course, we know that some trade union officials and shop stewards go out of their way to make mischief—would not, thereby, have been lessened. Probably we shall not be far wrong in saying that what is called the " good " employer (that is to say, the employer who keeps an open mind and is reasonably responsive to the spirit of the times) and the " good " workman (that is to say, the workman who does not believe in throwing the work of the factory out of gear by some pedantic insistence upon an imaginary right or upon a fallacious grievance) seldom have any cause to quarrel. Quarrels arise between " bad " employers and " bad " union officials. The worst of the latter are pure destructionists. When such quarrels have risen to the surface everybody in the factory concerned becomes involved and the trouble spreads until it is of necessity taken up by all employers on the one side and all employees on the other. We see such a situation before us.
There would be a complete cure for this state of affairs if both sides could be brought in the mass to believe in what is really a simple and obvious truth, that industry is a great partnership. Once understand the nature of this partnership and you must perceive how silly it is for either party to say to the other party, " We will not listen to you. You have no interest in this matter whatever."
There are actually three distinct parties interested in industrial production. First, there are the manual workers ; secondly, there are the managers of industry who are usually described as the employers, and, thirdly, there are the capitalists—a class which, of course, includes the employers, but also includes the whole public and a great• many of the manual workers themselves. Manual workers, even when they have money invested directly or indirectly in industry, generally do not recognize that they are capitalists. But the more conscious capitalists who watch anxiously and deliberately the use that is being made of the money they have contributed to industrial enterprises are quite naturally careful and timid people. The one thing which makes them ready to lend their money • is confidence— confidence that the money will be rightly used so that by the success of industry they may receive a reasonable return. If they fear that the directing brains of industry are not being allowed to direct because the manual workers put ridiculous impediments in the way or if, again, they fear that employers in a particular industry by a heavy- handed treatment of the men are likely to cause a strike, and, therefore, a cessation of production, they lose confi- dence. The chief sufferers from this loss of confidence are the manual workers. Less money comes in to expand industry, and the result is that there is less money to pay out in wages and fewer workers are required. We greatly wish that there could be a full inquiry into the condition of many industries, for there is no doubt that public confidence has been largely undermined.. The public wants to know whether there is any substance in the men's contention that they are gradually being deprived of the right to a share in determining the con- ditions under which they work. The public also wants to know whether there is any substance in the repeated assertion of the employers that trade union restrictions arc simply killing all hopes of a genuine and early revival of trade. Take the single case of ca' canny. This doctrine of working slow in order that there may be enough work to go round rests on the disastrously foolish assumption that there is only a limited amount of work. The truth, of course, is the exact contrary—work creates work. But how prevalent is this practice of ea' canny I Both sides tell us different things. If the whole truth were brought into the light of day there would be a fairer chance of re-establishing public confidence. We sincerely hope, therefore, that there will be a full inquiry. We under- stand the Government's point of view that a Court of Inquiry could not be set up till the forty-seven trade unions which had still to vote on the present crisis had recorded their opinion. But whatever happens during the next few days there will still be an urgent need for an inquiry. In our opinion the inquiry ought to cover, not only all the trade union rules dealing with production and efficiency, but, in order that the inquiry may be complete and dis- passionate, the attitude of employers towards the unions and all their rules.
Meanwhile, the statements by the employers and the employed to which we have referred are very useful. The employers roundly say that the interference of the unions is not confined to the " conditions of work " but affects such managerial functions as can be exercised only by men who have been highly trained for the purpose.
" An engineering concern in this country to-day resembles a ship in which the orders of the officers responsible for the navigation of the vessel are liable to be challenged and set aside by the crew or by outside persons. Just as the ship's officers, under the direction of the captain, take their observations— which they alone are competent to do—mark the position on the chart and lay a course accordingly, so the technical staff of an engineering concern work out, under the direction of a head, the execution of a particular job ; they make their calculations and lay a course ; that is, they plan the processes and adjust the moans at their disposal to the end in view. This is a task requiring a high degree of technical knowledge ; for just as a ship has a choice of routes and of various operations, so the engineer has alternative methods of executing a given task. His success depends, like that of the navigator, on the soundness of his judgment. In both cases the execution of whatever plan may be adopted entails certain instructions ; and that is what we mean by exercising managerial functions. The analogy goes further. As unforeseen conditions and emergencies arise at sea, demanding a departure from the normal routine, so they do in the engineering industry. The delivery of an order may be accelerated by the consignee or a vessel which is to take a consignment from the works may sail earlier than was expected ; accidents and breakdowns may occur. These and similar circumstances must be met by special measures. When the orders given by those responsible for the navigation of the ship are not obeyed something goes wrong ; at the best the voyage is delayed, at the worst the ship does not reach port at all, and so it is with engineering. The completion of work is delayed to the dissatisfaction of customers or delivery cannot be guaranteed. Hence loss of orders and of reputation. No one would travel or send goods by a ship in which the orders of the officers were constantly questioned and disobeyed by the crew. That is the position in which we are placed to-day. The fact will be denied and the public will need evidence in order to judge."
The employers then give a large number of selected examples of interference and say that they could multiply them indefinitely. We will give only one instance :— " A firm had a breakdown to an engine when running on a test bed. The men saw the necessity of working overtime and did so, but they were fined 10s. each by the District Com- mittee and the fine was confirmed on appeal. The same firm had another breakdown during completion of a very important engine, for which a ship was waiting, and which would have brought more work to the district. The men were willing to work any overtime required, but were told by the local officials that they would be fined if they did so."
Finally, the employers declare that they do not wish " to smash trade unionism," but, on the contrary, that they regularly work with the unions and are glad to do so. Their scheme for carrying on without undue interference was accepted by the Executive of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, but was turned down at the ballot, when less than one-fifth of the members troubled to vote.
Mr. Smethurst, in his statement in the Democrat, con- centrates upon the question of overtime, and accuses the employers of having unnecessarily, for tactical reasons, extended the issue to embrace the general subject of inter- ference with managerial functions. He points out that in various agreements the employers accepted as incontestable the right of the unions to be consulted in all matters affecting the welfare of their members or the conditions of their employment, and he holds that these agreements are violated when the employer sets up to be the sole judge of when overtime is " necessary." But, as he frankly, and as we think in a reasonable spirit, asserts the desire of his union to let " proper managerial functions " be reserved to the employers so long as the proper functions of the union are recognized by the employers, there ought to be a good chance of settlement. Such general phrases merely bring us back to the old question—the permanent relations between employers and men—which cannot be settled in the abstract because it is an affair of practice and daily adjustment. In the House of Commons debate on Monday, Sir Allan Smith and other employers showed their readiness for negotiation. Negotiation is the only way. As we have tried to explain, nothing is to be gained by fighting to a finish about phrases to which nobody can attach particular meanings. Above all, let us have an inquiry which will throw light not only on the engineering trades, but on all industry. This war can be soon ended if the moderates on both sides make their influence felt.
Previous page
