THE LOCK-OUT AND ITS ISSUES.
[To THE EDITOR or THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR, I observe that you consider the public to have grounds of complaint that the employers have not made their case clear, but are you not overlooking the indifference of the public to all industrial matters until a crisis arrives? Negotiations between the A.E.U. and the employers have been proceeding for over a year, but had reports of these been offered to the Press I feel sure that they would not have been published. It is difficult, even now that affairs have reached a crisis, to present the case in a simple form such as can be grasped by those unconnected with-= the industry, and to recount the various points of difference between the two parties would, I fear, only puzzle and weary the public, but if we analyse the aims Of both sides it would appear that the basic difference between them arises from the conflicting ways in which a purely economic question is regarded. The view of the work- men is that there is only a limited amount of work to be done, and that this should be distributed as equally as possible
amongst all the workers. From this logically follow the objections' to overtime, to one man working more than 'one machine, to men trying to increase output, and to systems of payment by result which would reward increased output: The Unions of skilled' workers take even a stricter view, and hence arises their objection to men who do not belong to'these Unions doing work of which: they are quite capable, and hence also arise" the quarrels between skilled men of different trades as to the demarcation of work. The employers' view is that more work would be created by the removal of restrictions, and they desire freedom to use all legitimate means of reducing the cost of production. Both. sides look at the matter .in the first place from the selfish standpoint of class interest, but there is this differences that the manual workers do not pretend to seek anything beyond class interest while the employers say that the interest of their class is also the interest of the working class and of the whole community.
It is only fair to remember, in considering what some call the narrow outlook of tho workers, that the latter have ever present to their minds the fear of unemployment. Those of us who are more happily situated do not always visualize what it means for a man with a family, and with an income which does not leaVe much margin for saving, to have that income suddenly stopped altogether; one cannot blame men for doing what they think is best to avoid such a disaster. If it were possible to remove this fear I do not think that employers would meet with resistance on the part of the men to much- needed industrial reforms, but the difficulty is to know how this can be done. Men and employers have paid vast sums to the State for the last ten years—during at least nine of which there was practically no unemployment—in the belief that provision was being made for a period of bad trade. That period has now arrived, and most of the money collected seems to have disappeared. I believe that if such sums were handled jointly by representatives of the employers and of the Trade Unions instead of by the State they would be amply sufficient to- provide against unemployment, and we should not see dis- putes such as the present one. I admit that there are many difficulties in working out a satisfactory scheme, but I cannot help hoping that when the present trouble is over the subject
will be investigated.—I am, Sir, de., NORTH-WEST.
Previous page
