THE GREAT INDUSTRIAL OPPORTUNITY
-vvHEN the general strike was called off the Prime Minister's reputation was exalted to the heavens. He occupied a position such as had not been held by any Prime Minister for more than a hundred years. Everyone looked to him—almost leaned upon him—for guidance and support. If only the coal dispute can be settled wisely and quickly Mr. Baldwin will still be in possession of that reputation. What will he do with it ?
By far the greatest task to which he can set his hand— and he notoriously has this in his mind—is to bring about a prolonged and universal peace in industry. A prolonged peace would probably mean a permanent peace because it would be discovered that peace pays. There was never a time in our recollection when Labour was more open than now to new ideas. It has undergone a great disillusionment. It has wasted its own money and the nation's money on gaining nothing. Anywhere in the country one may talk with wage-earners who express doubts whether the identification of trade unionism with a political cause is " worth it." Anyhow they think that, so far, it has led them along the -wrong road. Their leaders magnified the general strike as the most potent of all weapons, and when the weapon was used it inflicted a deep wound upon its owners. After all, the professed object of trade unions is to improve the conditions of labour. Now, the whole of that object may be expressed in the two words, " high wages." Ninety-nine out of one hundred hand-workers if asked to say what they really felt would admit that if they got high wages they would not bother about anything else. They might still be politicians, of course—and it is desirable that they should be—but they would not confuse politics with every act of a trade union executive. While Labour has a much more marked tendency than before to such thoughts as these the employers are tending in the same direction. These are simple facts.
The Times has lately published several remarkable letters from employers who say that they have given their workers a financial interest in the profits of the companies, and that as a result the factories enjoy perfect peace and contentment. Strikes have become things of the past. Is there not a Labour leader strong enough to stand up in the House of Commons and say that he will try to lead his followers along the road' of high wages without demanding' that Socialism should be written on the signpost ? We firmly believe that if " the will to high wages " is displayed by enough people on both sides in the industrial controversy it will be possible for that paradise of the worker to be reached and to be reached quickly. The Prime Minister, we may 'be sure, would do all he can, and if any backward employers still had any misgivings they would nevertheless fall into line behind those great captains who are already prepared to take the road.
What is wanted is something better than " a living wage." The. band-worker should have what was called in' America when the Daily Mail mission of Unionists was there " a saving wage." There ought to be no limit to the wage which a man earns so long as he really earns it. High wages are economical for every kind of work when payment is by results, because the saving in over- head charges which is made by the quick worker is very great.
- The wise Labour leader whom we are imagining would take Mr. Baldwin at his word, and would declare that he recognized the futility of turning the industries of the country into a field of battle instead of making them a sphere of willing co-operation. He would admit that trade unionism in the past has, by rules and regulation* and pedantic " demarcation," sorely hampered industry but he would at the same time warn Unionists that if they declared legislative war on the trade unions they would simply drive into unity all trade unionists good, bad and indifferent, who would defend their territory, as though it were an invaded country. He would go on not to deprecate, but to invite co-operation in a new Codification of trade union law. He would point out to trade unionists the vast advantages of knowing exactly where they stood and of ending the grievances which a multitude of trade unionists secretly feel.
Having got a promise of agreement about trade unions law the Labour leader would turn to the conduct of in-." dustry itself, and undertake to convince his friends in the trade unions that it would pay them to produce as much; as ever they could with the free use of labour-aiding, machinery. He would ask the employers on their side to promise first not to cut wages and secondly to give the workers an interest in both the profits and the manage- ment of industry. He would point out that there is at present in most factories a hard and fast dividing line. In America the line between hand-workers and the management hardly exists. Promotion is by merit, and the highest official in any works or company is always accessible to anyone who " has an idea." In preserving the dividing line in this country Labour is as much to blame as the employers. By its very organization Labour emphasizes the existence of the line. Let us get rid of it. It may be, and probably is, due to caste as much as to the causes we have already mentioned. But caste received a heavy blow in the War, and is dying pretty fast.
" Production " is the master word of our new era. Wages must not be reduced, but prices must. Labour-aiding machinery must be freely used, and ca' canny must be banished. There will be plenty of markets when prices fall. Along these lines success is certain. As a typical employer in America said to an English employer, " Pay your men and they will make your plant pay you."
Previous page
