A JOINT MOTOR INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Discussion of Some of the Difficulties in the Way of Its Formation.
WHILE WE ARE all, probably, entirely agreed as to the soundness of the proposals embodied in the report of the Whitley Committee and while, in some industries, it has fortunately already proved possible to form Joint Industrial Reconstruction Councils or at least Interim Committees, it becomes increasinglydifficulty to visualize the organization which would make the principle feasible in respect of the motor industry.
The present writer has, before now, expressed his views on this question with particular reference to the difficulty of organizing what we may call the employees' half of a Joint Council. He must admit that he was for some time under the impression that, as regards the other half, there would be no very serious difficulties.
Recent developments, however, are such as to lead one to wonder whether it would be much easier to form the employers' half than the employees' half of a Joint Council in our special case. The question is really what the Ministry of Reconstruction is for. Is it out to develop British industry—or perhaps one had better use the word British manufacture—or is it equally concerned in the trade interests of all employers and employed persons whatever the character of the employment?
Obviously, the wider we can throw the net, the better from some points of view, but a difficulty arises when we realize that the business of some British subjects is such that their interests are in direct conflict with British manufacturing interests. The British employees of such persons are, when it comes to the point, employed mainly for the purpose of diverting business from a large number of other British workers, into the hands of a corresponding number of foreign workers.
What Is the Importer's Position ?
Take, for instance, the case of the importer of a motor vehicle. He and his employees.are British subjects and arc, therefore, worthy of consideration. If, however, we recognize this to the extent of permitting representation on a Joint Reconstruction Council, we may be introducing on to the Council an element, the presence of which will tend to a reduction in the total volume of British labour employed in connection with the industry. A somewhat similar case arises when we consider the position of an agent or factor dealing in goods, some of which are British while some are foreign.
An additional complication arises from the fact that even goods of British manufacture eannot as a rule be produced without some degree of dependence upon foreign materials and labour.
If we were to go too far in the one direction, we should exclude from our Joint Council a motor manufacturer who used material such as to give employment to foreign labour in the extraction of iron ore or the mining of other materials. Obviously, we cannot go to this absurd extreme. Admitting this is to admit straightaway that we must compromise somewhere. We might go to the other extreme and give representation on the Council to a, mere importing agent, himself a British subject, but whose profits are proportional to the success of his efforts to divert trade from British to foreign factories.
One cannot imagine that the representatives of British labour would sit at the same table as such a man to discuss, for instance, questions of material supplies. The financial interests of the importer would be best served if the British manufacturer suffered from a shortage of material and therefore 036 was unable to sell goods or to employ British labour. Evidently, then, he could have no voice on such a question. Furthermore, his interests would again be best served if, in negotiations between employers and employed, he could get matters to such a point as to lead to serious labour troubles in this country, paralysing home production and therefore leaving a bigger market for foreign goods. As a patriotic subject he would not, of course, go to such extremes, but we are on very unsafe ground when we utilize, for such purposes as we have in mind, the services of men whose own business interests will be best served if the solution reached is an unstisfactory one from the point of view of British labour.
Difficulty of Fair Representation.
Thus, in the formation of the employers' half of a Joint Council, we have first to solve the difficulty of whether the representation shall be purely of British manufacturers or whether it shall include traders and• distributers, regardless of the nationality of the goods in which they deal, but simply lin the grounds that, in dealing with those goods, they are to some extent employers of British labour. Supposing we came to the conclusion that the employers' half of the Council should be as wide in scope as possible, then we open the door to new opposition against participation on the part of labour, on the grounds that the employers' side is not wholeheartedly concerned in the welfare of the British working man, this welfare being only properly safeguarded if big markets are found for British goods. Supposing, in a Council for the motor industry, the employers' half consisted of the representatives simply of British manufacturers and the other half substantially of representatives of the workers employed by those same manufacturers, then we have a proper balance between the two halves. Supposing, on the other hand, out of ten representatives of employers only seven were British manufacturers, thtn those manufacturers would be out-voted on the Joint Council by the ten representatives of British labour, and the balance„would be destroyed.
Meanwhile the financial interests of the three importers or dealers in foreign goods, presumed to be included in the employers' half, would be best served if those three votes were always given in favour of the proposition, whatever it Might be, most likely to be detrimental to the interests of British manufacturers as against foreign competition. The whole problem is an immensely complicated one, and the more we examine it the more does it appear almost inevitable that we have not yet reached the moment for its solution.
In the writer's opinion' the development must come in what may be called a downward direction ; that is to say, we must have first a Joint Council for the British engineering industry as a whole, and from this —or by its initiative—must be formed sectional Councils for the various sections of the engineering industry of which the motor industry would evidently be one. In the formation of the main Engineering Council, certain basic principles would have to be established, and the question of who should be representdd would have to be definitely, determined. The ground would then be clear for the formation of sectional Councils in circumstances which would automatically eliminate the probability of serious disagreements which might otherwise be expected to arise,