WHAT IS THE' TRUTH ABOUT OUTPUT AND WAGES ? By

THE kr. HON, J. R. CLYNES, M.P.

1The question whether the manual workers' output is what_ it ought to be is so intensely important that we are sure our readers- will be glad to read the following judicial discussion of the matter by so distinguished a Labour leader as Mr. Clynes. For our part we do not mind Mr. Clynes's formal or general repudiation of the sommon charges about- ca' canny—though we think he is, too lenient to his friends—in view of the invaluable common-sense principles which ho propounds in his summary at the end. That there should be honest inquiry into the Trade Union practices, and that any deliberite slowing up for the purpose of leaving work for ethers should be abandoned, is almost all that we have pleaded for. Incidentally, we are specially interested in Mr. Clynes's condemna- tion of obstruction in the matter of new types of building.--Eh. Spectator.] NOT for long is the question of output allowed to rest. We should not complain of that, for if a higher standard of living is desired, the national product must be higher.

There are many who believe that- so far as censure is justified, all of it should fall upon the worker. The critics are not taking a fair or a reasonable view of the case. Surely they have heard that for reasons of profit, price or power, persons in high authority or powerful companies have deliberately restricted the output of, say, rubber or cotton, and have artificially diminished the supplies of certain raw materials because abundance meant lower prices, and cheapness in that form was not desired.

The manual worker is not the only offender, and it is not easy to prove that in- any serious degree he is an offender at all. So far, we have not got at the facts, There has been far too much general and loose condem- nation, assertions of deliberate restriction, and of Trade Union rules and resolutions which, on enquiry, are found not to exist, and are part of the fiction in which this discussion has been dressed. Although there is a great deal of ignorance and prejudice surrounding the subject of production and the possibilities of improving our industrial position by improving the output, there is something wanting on the Trade Union side in the evidence presented against the charge that in many instances output is restricted. Cannot the leaders supply- it in convincing form ?

The favourite ground for criticism is the case of• the building trades. The men in this industry are well organized. Few of the men who are skilled in it are unemployed. They have able agents and spokesmen, and the cause of truth and confidence would not suffer if either the Labour case were frankly stated in answer to public complaints, or some joint enquiry clearly revealed to the public mind what the facts are.

Let me submit two instances of evidence not from the side of the workmen, but in terms and character very definitely in their favour. Recently, Sir Charles Ruthen, Director-General of Housing, referring to the statement that Dutch workmen produced more than British, made the following statement in the Times : " I am not pre- pared to admit for a single moment that the Dutch workman produces a greater volume of output than the British workman, but would rather state definitely that the quality and quantity of work produced by the British workman in the building industry is equal if not superior to that of the workman in any other country." During a Debate in the -House of Commons on Housing on December 16th, 1924; Mr, Neville Chamberlain stated that " in the twelve months ending September 30th last, 110,000 houses had' been built and completed. This number was an approach to the highest total- ever built in one year in pre-War days. 95,000 of these houses had a rateable value of under £26 a year, and therefore were distinctly of the kind required for working-class accommo- dation."

These facts were adduced properly- to support Mr. Chamberlain's argument that. he was doing-something- to solve. the housing problem., But if he. proves by results that the men in_ the trade are doing nearly. as well as ever, ",in spite,"' as,he said, " of.the extraordinary limitations of labour and materials," and if also we keep in. mind, his point that the total number ofskilled men in.the industry is far less than it formerly was, it is difficult to make out a case to the effect that the men are not doing their best. He cannot have it both ways.

As to new types of houses suggested, we do not yet know enough to dogmatize, but clearly our necessities are so pressing that if a reasonable case can be made out for any one of these types, no conflict between a potential employer and workmen's wage interests should permanently stand in the way of supplying houses for which 'there is an increasing demand. In spite- of the need for service in building processes, many thousands of men classed as unskilled. men in the building trades' are unemployed. Skilled men are in full= work. If the unemployed section can be found work on the new. type of houses their employment could, not prejudice the interests of the others. ReconstruCtion and repair in innumerable building services and suck effort as we can make to catch up with War-time and post-War arrears will probably afford for a generation ahead prospect of continued work for all men with skill in this occupation. I submit the view, therefore, that men who ask employers to be fair to them should be fair to each other. Many men are now shut out of a reasonable prospect of advance because either custom or selfishness prevents workmen in many instances giving fair opportunity either to natural ability or to individual endeavour in the case of workmen who want to make the best of their surroundings.

Men who have not had the advantage of apprentice- ship, technical education, or workshop training should not be denied the chance of making- the best use of special exertion or opportunity. To raise the economic level of the unskilled class would not be merely a class benefit. It would be an enormous national advantage.

A large section of people are kept in the position of being an inferior part -of the population because from boyhood or youth upward they have had to perform hard, dirty, and often dangerous toil, which required no special training or education. The lack of these advantages should no longer carry the penalty of living permanently at the lowest social level in spite of the indispensable nature of the work performed. On the one hand, therefore, we might ask men to abandon any - unwillingness they may have exhibited to the adoption of new ideas. and methods of construction, and on the other hand ask those who are promoting schemes for new types of houses not to force their erection at the lowest rate of wage which as yet unskilled workmen have been compelled to accept.

Setting aside objections on grounds of taste or dura- bility, and considering new types from the standpoint only of pressing social necessity, there is no problem before us other than that of settling wages for work done. If a new type of house does not call for the old type of skill, a difficulty with the skilled trades should not arise.. But workers' organizations are naturally interested in the terms of any bargain which may ulti- mately have a serious effect upon the whole level of earnings in the building trades. But given fair rates for the kind. of work required there can be no objection to .proceeding with work for which there.is such pressing. demand. The general problem of production affects many industries besides that of building, but it does not affect all. More than half the labour of the country is performed on a piece-work basis and various standards as to weight, output, and time determine both, - the exertion and the remuneration of the worker.

In certain occupations in which machinery is used to a high degree it would be impossible, I think, to speed up or reorganize production so as to attain higher output. No industry, for instance, has suffered in recent -years more than. the cotton trade. Its difficulties are .due to world disturbance, to political troubles in India and elsewhere, and to the high price at which raw material has beeirsupplied from America. Questions of production . have often been raised in two other trades, namely, Engineering and Ship-building, which still suffer from serious depression. Depression will continue until demand has increased, and demand could be hastened by being able to sell at a price within the power of other people to buy. In these industries a high level of output is essential to success. If the workers could be sure of a fair share of any greater output, they would -see the wisdom of doing their best to secure it. If workmen -deliberately seduce the volume of national wealth -by lessening output, they. reduce their.own chances of raising the standard of -living. But the problem is one to be viewed from every aspect, including overhead charges, rates and taxes, and the, exactions of the landlords which are often a heavy weight of oppression resting upon trades and businesses struggling, for existence.

My summary, therefore, is :--That no - case is proven of our workmen being unwilling to do their fair share.

That there is, however, an increasing .suspicion that within the limits of reasonable human endeavour more -can be done, and therefore steps should be taken to have this suspicion removed.

That. so far as restriction may -be due to the foolish notion that the less one man may do, the more work there is left for another, it is the very worst doctrine in the interests of the workers themselves.

That any reluctance to settle conflict about "lines of demarcation" between one job and another, or to arrange new methods of work involving mass .production and subdivision of labour, inflicts in the long run most injury upon the wage-earners.

That their interests lie in giving the greatest purchasing power to the money which they earn, and the value of their pay is lessened by anything which makes more dear the daily needs of life.