THE UNIONS AND THE GOVERNMENT
By A. P. WADSWORTH
THE last week has seen much advance in straightening out the relations between organised labour and the Government's war machine. A national advisory council of employers and trade unionists, with the Minister of Labour as chairman, has been set up (and held its first meeting on Wednesday). A trade union advisory committee has been attached to the Ministry of Supply, and trade unionists are to be on all the Ministry's regional committees. Five trade unionists are to advise the Minister of Food on rationing. Discussions are going on with various other Ministers for the putting of trade unionists on their advisory bodies. The Prime Minister has sent an instruction to all Government Departments stating his desire for " the most complete understanding and co-operation " between them and the trade union movement. The active association of the trade unions with the economic side of the war effort is now formally acknowledged.
All this is important, not so much for what it achieves (advisory committees are often pretty feeble bodies) as for the admission that organised labour has won its right to partnership. The stages by which this right has come to be admitted are not altogether edifying. Labour had to knock rather peremptorily at the door and had to use some strong language to remind the Government of its existence. But once the noise was loud enough the Government hastened to make amends.
The Government began with good intentions, but slipped away from them. The unions were called into consultation in December and January on the national voluntary service scheme, and the first list of reserved occupations. On March 3rst, after the collapse of " appeasement," ...Le Minister of Labour opened discussions with the employers and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress on " the supply and regulation of wages and conditions in war- time." The evils of hasty improvisation, he told them, should be avoided; " under conditions of modern warfare all trades and industries would be in the sphere of conflict, and all must be efficiently organised." He put a number of rather searching questions on how the labour supply could be used to the best advantage, on wages machinery, and on compulsory arbitration.
The T.U.C.'s reply (endorsed by its constituent execu- tives on May r9th) was determined by the fact that, although it is the central organ of the unions, it has no authority to legislate for them in matters that touch their sectional interests. There was even criticism that it had gone too far in making the general proposals it did ; the engineers were especially touchy. Yet the T.U.C. scheme was in effect one of industrial autonomy. Each industry, it pro- posed, should have a national committee of the employers and unions composing its joint negotiating machinery. " It should be obligatory upon the Government to notify the committee of the potential needs from the industry and a list of priority orders for production. It would be the duty of such committees to evolve the best system for utilising labour in time of war and to determine the machinery to deal fully with the question of transference of labour in a war emergency." The whole machinery would be " co- ordinated " through a national joint committee.
In essence the T.U.C. proposals meant that each industry should work out its own man-power problems, and that collective bargaining and collective responsibility should be extended, with the backing of the State, over the whole field.
The T.U.C. evaded the question of compulsory arbitration just as it evaded that of the tight regulation of labour through " leaving certificates." These were cardinal points in the labour history of the last War, but the T.U.C. was probably wise in refusing to commit itself, since it could not pledge its constituents on either. The proposals remained under intermittent discussion all summer, and war broke out before any decision had been reached. Meanwhile industries had attended to their own affairs. On August 3rst the engineering employers and the Amalgamated Engineering Union reached the extremely important agreement under which the armaments industries could extend their labour force by " dilution." The union would no longer stand in the way of the use of semi-skilled labour on skilled jobs where skilled men were unobtainable. At one stroke, by voluntary agreement, the engineering indus- tries jumped to a point that it took months of negotiation and intervention by the heads of the Government to reach in the last War.
When war came Ministers put their prepared plans into effect, and it was found that they had left small place for the unions. The Minister of Labour was soon reminded of their existence when in the second week of September he had to take back his Control of Employment Bill and insert; to meet Labour suspicions, guarantees that its wide powers should only be exercised after consultation with employers and unions in the trades affected. The unions were getting restive ; Labour had accepted conscription and was giving full support to the Government's war measures ; was this all the return it was to get? On September r3th in the Com- mons Mr. Greenwood served notice: " We believe that in all the big problems which will have to be solved in the future Labour must be in on the ground floor. . . . The trade union movement is in no mood to be regarded as the poor relation of industry. It claims equality in the direction of policy as well as in administration with the employers and with the State departments concerned." On September 21st the Minister of Supply outlined the work of his Depart- ment, and it was discovered that he had left all labour questions to the Minister of Labour! The Ministry of Munitions had devoted a great part of its energies to the handling of the men who made the munitions ; Mr. Burgin ignored them. Plain speaking followed and full apologies. The Prime Minister took a hand, and talked nicely to and about the unions. The Minister of Labour resumed his discussions. And now all the fruits of belated conversion are being seen.
The Prime Minister has been as good as his word. He has suggested, for instance, that the trade union advisory committee to the Ministry of Supply should also advise the Air Ministry-. The T.U.C. is promised direct access to the chief executive officers of these Ministries. Discussions are going on with other Ministries such as that of Economic Welfare. Trade union consultation is provided for before the Home Office assents to any relaxation of the Factory Acts. And so one could go on through what—on paper—is an impressive catalogue.
The scope and functions of the Minister of Labour's national advisory committee are wide. The only limitation is that it should confine itself to general principles and must not interfere with the domestic affairs of particular indus- tries. It is easy to see that the Minister of Labour might bring to it general questions like the regulation of man- power, the reserved occupations, and national wage policy. Almost inevitably we shall need restrictive legislation com- parable with the Munitions Code of the last war, and this body could appropriately discuss it. The committee is also to be used as a link between Departments. Thus a discus- sion on industry and the black-out would bring not only the Ministry of Labour but the Ministry of Home Security and the Air Ministry into contact with the employers and the unions.
We may expect that the T.U.C. will go on pressing its proposals for national machinery for each industry. The employers, while willing to join a central advisory body, are not apparently convinced of the need for setting up com- mittees for each industry. This is an attitude that can hardly survive long. Important industries have already created their own committees—coal-mining, building and cotton, for instance, and the scheme for the voluntary transfer of dock labour is a striking example of how an industry can organise its own man-power.
There were parallels to some of these steps in the last War, but such bodies as the National Advisory Committee, the Central Munitions Labour Supply Committee, the Local Labour Advisory Boards, the Man Power Dis- tribution Board and the rest were then ad hoc bodies that did not fit into any general plan, or at least into any plan that survived the strain of four years of war. We may build better this time, but it is well to remember that the really acute labour problems of war have as yet hardly emerged. The developments so far offer little guidance on how the Labour movement will face and deal with a national policy on wages, with restrictions on the mobility of labour, and wholesale dilution. The most we can say is that Labour has got its footing on " the ground floor." For the rest the trade unions are as much in the dark as any of us.
Previous page
