1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204 
Fireworks Over N.J.I.C.
Page 127
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Heated Discussion Extends Over Two Days: Delegate Says That Future Negotiations Will be Hampered
ROBABLY, no previous paper read before the members of the Municipal Passenger Transport elation has aroused such a heated ssion, which ran well into the id day, and amounted in some to personal attacks, as that by G. Beckett, A.M.Inst.T., entitled s Whitleyism Failed in the MuniPassenger Transport Industry? " me thought that it should never been presented, others that it was .ble as a safety valve. Certain bers used the discussion to introa political bias amidst laughter occasional jeers from the body of alL The concensus of opinion, ver, seemed to be that it was a .y effort by the author and that s should not be discouraged from wing in his footsteps. '
1. J. Whitaker (Todmorden) said as a former trade union official in vtton industry, he recalled that. negotiating for a guaranteed ,his side was told by an employer: we can't sell our cloth, we can't ny wages."
was of little use talking about the 'or the job." No standard for the of services could -be reached.
Mr. Fitzpayne Attacks
E. R. L. Fitzpayne (Glasgow) ssed disappointment with the and, as a member of both Joint cils, was dismayed that their :rs should have such undeserved ism. There was no need to alize regarding Whitleyism and he I have thought that the first task e author would be to have ascer its success, or otherwise, ghout Industry and then make a arison with what had happened in cipal passenger transport.
e author appeared to consider natters of local importance should ttled nationally. Surely, in a small -taking like Darwen, there would better spirit than in a larger -taking, and if a Works Corn
e could be satisfactory anywhere, w ould seem to be the place where .uld function.
ference was made to grouping. yet D u sly members in area C were need that there should be one rate -aftsmen, covering the country. If vas good for them, it must be so platform staffs. Assuming two )s and Darwen in the lower,
not its platform staff be entitled y that if Darwen could not pay ✓ rates, then it should• surrender idertaking to a larger one? was new to suggest that the con ✓ should receive more than the r, but the driver unquestionably he more responsible task.
1. H. Watton (Birmingham) conlated the author on his attempt to c employers and employees to face ical conditions. Whitleyism had eded if this meant keeping the try out of major disputes over years. It failed, however, if the question was whether the staffs were satisfied with their wages and conditions.
Unless platform staffs worked overtime, the basic wage was not adequate for a reasonable standard of life. This was a problem the industry must tackle. The transport workers here were the lowest paid in the world.
Cllr. F. Heptonstall (Doncaster) had never heard a more controversial paper. His one objection was to bonus schemes, but with full employment some incentive had to be offered. There should also be a bigger differential between the wages of the skilled man and the labourer.
Cllr. W. • G. Dyer (Nottingham) strongly criticized Ald. Watton for saying that wages in the industry were the worst in the world. His own knowledge was confined to Spain, where the equivalent wage was only 56s. per week. He added that wages had caught up with prices and further claims might lose as a result of such extravagant statements.
Hearty Disapproval
Cllr. A. Donovan, J.P. (Manchester) heartily disapproved of the paper. His and other undertakings could not get satisfactory staff because wages were too low, although they had incentives in the way of good sick-pay schemes, canteens, etc. A wage of £7 for a driver in large cities was not fair when the minimum rate, for a labourer was £6 15s. for 44 hours, Mr. C. S. A. Wickens (Luton) said that all knew there was no basic wage. Most undertakings in industrial towns had labour shortage, and his paid the highest wage in the industry. Within the past week or two, the average for drivers was £12 17s. 4d. for 58.9 hours— including about 15 hours overtime at 8s. per hour.
Cl1r. S. P. Hill (Nottingham) objected to the suggestion that small undertakings should be absorbed by the larger. They had fought for negotiating machinery and it was necessary to hold it. He thought all would agree that there was need for an increase in the basic wage, but it should be obtained through proper negotiations. He was against piecemeal increases given off the record. Aid. T. C. Loftus (Salford) regretted the view that the paper would hamper future negotiations. Its opening statements showed common sense and it dealt with a common problem which concerned everyone. • He emphasized that 'the Government were involved in the industry's problems—the negotiating machinery of the Whitley Councils had been inaugurated by the Government. Now it was being urged by some that the Government should keep out, when, but for heavy taxation, the industry would be in a happy position. Passenger transport could never hope to have a bigger income than now. because of the present conditions of production and employment., If it had not been for the Whitley Council there would have been minor revolutions in the industry. [This was the second reference by a speaker to such possible occurrences.—ED.] Cilr. S. W, Bridges (Leicester) claimed that Whitleyism had not failed and he was against varying wage rates in different areas. He described as hooey " the idea that it cost more to live in one area than in another. As a trade unionist, he would be frightened of returning to the hotchpotch of agreements of the inter-war years. In Leicester they had no crisis. For years past the average wage had been over £9. Leicester had reduced fares whilst Nottingham had raised them. Now the latter was running 3s. trips to Leicester to see how they did it!
Ald. J. Rafferty (Leeds) expressed disagreement with the attack made on the author by Mr. Fitzpayne. Writers of papers were asked to be provocative and they ought not to be attacked in a personal way. He supported national negotiating machinery; the return of separate agreements would be to go back to the jungle. The zoning policy was for the big people who wanted to be poohbahs in their areas.
Not the Way
Cllr. W. Flynn (Middlesbrough) warned that if the transport industry tried to buy labour from private enterprise industries by competitive wages. it would fail. Increasing wages would raise fares and lose passengers.
Aid. E. Ball (Wigan) thought that Whitleyism had been a great success. Every undertaking was having difficulties in respect of labour, but money alone would not solve the problem. There must be better conditions of service. One difficulty was that transport had to provide services seven days a week.
Replying, Mr. Beckett said that the N.J.I.C, had been formed to consider all matters affecting the industry, not merely wages. He regretted disparaging remarks made about small undertakings. He preferred to deal with people he knew and trusted rather than exercise cheap snobbery and claim that he was concerned witha big undertaking. He was not committed to grouping but urged investigation,