T HE moment they heard that Mr. Harold Wilson had been
put up by the Opposition to open the economic debate, Conservatives realised that they were safe. Once again the Opposition had been provided with a big occasion; once again they had muffed it. For months the Government had been drifting from expedient to expedient, unable or unwilling to take decisions. The apparent crisis in the motor industry could easily have been taken as the text of an informed onslaught on its policies. But Mr. Wilson chose to clown; and the impact of party clowning, however satisfying it may seem at the time, is short-lived. The result was that Mr. Harold Macmillan and, later, Mr. lain Macleod were able to put up a defence that was almost a vindication. The general picture emerging from their speeches was of an economy gradually achieving stability— too gradually for comfort, but making steady progress. Seen in this perspective, the motor industry's troubles seem less serious. With under 1 per cent. of the industry's labour force unem- ployed, it could even be argued that redundancy has trimmed off surplus fat.
But the point about the motor industry dispute is not how it arose but how it was handled. It is obvious now that the days of industrial stability are over; that the days of mobility have arrived. Both parties recognise that full employment needs easy redeployment as its ally. The events at Coventry and Birming- ham reveal that, however convinced everybody may be in theory of the need for planned mobility, in practice some employers, so far from being ready to make the necessary preparations, are prepared to revert to the methods of a century ago, and to treat their workers as expendable without any form of prior consultation. been fears that, had the unions been warned of the probability of redundancy earlier, some of the BMC's most highly skilled workers would have decided to experiment in mobility on their own account, and move off to other jobs before the rush hour. No doubt, too, there are still fossils in the firm who actually welcome the chance to show that the employer holds the whip; they would feel that they were doing a service to the community by cracking it. But these excuses cannot justify an action which tends to disrupt the gradually growing harmony of purpose between employer and worker in industry. Dismissal without consultation with the unions is the quickest possible way to encourage workers to be equally abrupt in their relations with employers. Admittedly the BMC was not doing anything illegal (though its pretence that the dismissed men were getting a month's pay, when in fact they were receiving only a week's, suggests an uneasy conscience); but it was certainly doing something anti-social. That it could so act is the measure of the community's failure to evolve a new structure of industry, in which the problems of employment and redundancy are dealt with, and not left to look after themselves.
Given the good will, surely, the point can be reached (and has been, in many firms) where normal hazards of labour rela- tions can be averted, or at least mitigated. That the motor industry has failed to establish such machinery reflects no credit on the people who control it; and it is worth reminding any Conservatives who feel inclined to congratulate the BMC on its firm action that the reaction, when it follows, can only harm the Government. Bad labour relations in the private enterprise settor of industry are no help in retaining a healthy free economy.
Previous page
