TRADE & WAGES.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17105, 29 March 1921, Page 9

TRADE & WAGES.

MODERATE VIEWS OF LABOUR LEASERS. CONDEMNATION OF STRIKES. (fbou ottr owjr cobresponbskt.) LONDON", February 10. London unemployment figures are expected to touch high-water mark this week—some 162,000. Between January 14th and\February sth the roll rose from 141,316 to 158,700. The number of men idle exceeds 100,000, of whom about 25,000 are in Stepney, Southwark, and Hackney. Tho figures do not include a largo number of persons who, though out of work, do not use the Labour Exchanges. Tho for the whole country Bhow that the number of unemployed was 1,059,800 for the period ended January 28th. With the widening of 'the industrial depression to tho coalmining industry the number of persons who are under-employed must exceed a further 2,000,000. The position is mado worse as compared with pre-war days by the higher cost of living. Eecently the unions turned down the Government's proposals'for the absorption of at least 50,000 ex-Service men in the building industry. Anticipating an adverse reply from the unions, the Government has had an alternative scheme prepared for the employment of these men on house-building, and this has been brought before tho Cabinet, with a strong recommendation from the Ministers who Ijave been dealing with the question that it should be put in force. The view taken in official circles is that the Government is bound to do everything in its power to provide work for ex-Service men, and that the offer made to' the building unions was on most generous lines. Tho Cabinet discussed the matter fully, and it is understood that as the result it was decided to proceed with the Government's own scheme. _ In ,order that this may be mado effective, it will be necessary to secure the co-operation of the master huilders, and of local authorities. There is reason to believe that the scheme contemplates that the _ men ,should- be,employed on the: Building of

.house* with concrete blocks, and for this class of work very little training is required to render a man efficient. Mi- Tom Mann, speaking at Wolverhampton, at a, meeting of the local bnuu-li of the Amalgamated Engineering Ifrrion, dealt with the necessity of tlie joint organisation of Labour forces. He was asfiamcd ami humiliated with the paltry standard of lifo that served for the workmen of,this country. They were, not intelligently ambitious. The reason they did not get more was that they had not switched on their mentality to get it. They wero not likely, to tc'ot it until they exhibited capacity and determination to regulate industry on their own account. If industry was regulated on co-operative lines of production for uso instead of for profit eH-ery family would be able to enjoy £l2 to £ls per week purchasing power. What they wanted in tho engineering trade was'amalgamation of forces without delay, and common action. In his judgment no man should .be content with less than £1 per day. Sir R. Home on Trade Outlook. Sir Robert Home, President of the Board of Trade, addressing.a Coalition meeting at Sheffield,, said that it was impossible to exaggerate the gravity of the depression in trade or unemployment in. the country. There were slight signs of a "revival, and he, thought the lapse of a few months might see evi-. dence of a change in tho conditions of the country. In the meantime, there were large stocks in this country, and the,buyers believed that some day these would bo offered at very large reductions, and they were waiting for them. "In my opinion," continued Sir Robert, "trade will never become healthy in this country until we liquidate those stocks. It will involve hardship, and in many quarters, perhaps, insurmountable _difficulties, but such realisation, I think, is inevitable. Once it begins, I think, you will see tho wheels of industry beginning to go round rapidly again." At this time, he said, the Labour Party were talking about a Capital Levy. There wag no more unfortunate moment to talk about a Capital Levy. The biggest difficulty of business men now was to find capital to finance business. A Capital Levy would destrov confidenco, paralyse trade, and be disastrous to every citizen in the country. The rates of exchange were a matter of considerable anxiety to the Cabinet. In Germany, for instance, ifc was possible to.make goods and sell them at an equivalent wage of £2 a week in this country. That, was what we had to face. Germany had to meet her reparations to the Allies, but wo should not jiermit her to make those reparations in goods. It would be bettor that wo should keep our employment in this country than lose it in orj der to get German reparation. If Germany paid her reparation in the shape of finished goods,, which created unemployment in this country, the result would be that we should be paying Germany's reparation. How, then, could it bo avoided? Wo could make Germany supply us with our raw materials for the industries of the country. Sho could get the raw materials from other countries in exchange for her finished goods. It is now becoming evident that the responsible Labour leaders are warning the rank and file of the dangers of direct action. Mr J. H. Thomas, M.P., addressing a branch of the National Union of Railwaymen, said to those who wanted industrial stoppage or social upheaval, "In the long chapter and m the long history of the world's progress you will find that no-social upheaval is equal to the revolution in the ideals and thoughts of the people themselves. I will never nsk the railwaymen, I will never give a lead to the. railwaymen, to withhold their labour, involving tho 'sacrifice and misery and suffering of themselves and others, to accomplish what tho exercise of common sense and intelligence of the workers could bring about."

Mr Ernest Bovin, an official of *he Transport Workers' Federation, speaking at Hull, said tho British aristocracy had become effete, and tho present unemployment problem reflected the bankruptcy of Capital. Ho believed trade unionism was going to control industry at no distant date. Direct action was impossible with tho Labour movement in its present stage of organisation. Mere verbiage in speeches would only lead men. to disaster. At a time wihen monoy could not be found for the unemployed tho Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the capitalists a gratuity of £200,000,000. Organisation had done -that. Fallacy of Reduced Production. "It has been suggested in some quarters," writes Mr J. H. Clynes, labour M.P., in tho '"'Financial Times," "that will bo driven to seek a remedy for unemployment in_ the direction of reducing wages. As 'things are at this moment, I think that would be a ruinous step to take, but if we are not to have reduced wages we cannot suffer '/educed' production. Both will inevit-, «ibly lead us towards still greater' trouble. There are workmen who think

that if they do leas there will be more for someone else to do, but against Dnai view it is possible to show the result* of actual experience, the only real tost. lleccnt months have been fruitful hi examples of the. fallacy of reduced production. Ido not seek to apportion blame or try to trace the cause, but from one cause or the other, last year was one of low production. And towards the end of it we Icached tho highest figures of unemployment known in recent times. If low production dut find work foi- others, surely there wourl bo no unemployment problem. to-day, and tho hundreds of thousands of men who aro now unhappily put of a joe would be engaged in profitable industry. Plenty is the friend of the worker. His difficulties are lessened by increased production, whereas decreased production increases his burdens and diminishes the purchasing power of hia 'wages. "Those of us in the Labour movement who try to improve the present system rather than make it unworkable aro faced with the criticism that we are all wrong in bo doing, and that wo should preach a new order. I disagree. The capital system, I believe, will stand until it falb.beneath a weight of conscious dissatisfaotion with it, and t a fixed determination gradually to build a better system. But the system is here, end to me the great question is—• Are we to make the best of it or the worst of it? I believb that we should make that system yieul the most which the workers can get from it in the way of regular employment, good wages, and the best obtainable results in relation to their services." . Following are some points made by Mr' Lloyd George, who,- speaking at Birmingham, said that what was most needed to enable the country to overcome tho difficulties created by the war was that Capital and Labour KiouUl! stand together:— . We are going through, the inevitable difficulties that follow a great war. •• What is the good of blaming the Government?- If you change the Government you don't change Bie facts. In Russia there is no Government at all. It must be a liappy land. It is not Governments but facts that you have to deal with. , . , -

The heavy burdens of tho war are expressing industry. 'Butthisis tho only country absolutely paying its way at tho present time. Let ue stand together. It was unity that enabled us to win tho war.

If Capital and Labour stand together, and men of all parties work together, we shall win through. The trouble in trade, is a real, ono, and to cure it you must find the causes. There has been a breakdown of international credit. Nobody can trust the exchanges. It is not merely depreciation in tho value of is that you cannot trust it to remain whore it is, even down; Trading under these conditions is like playing billiards on an Atlantic liner when there is a heavy sea on. (Laughter.) The exchange is pitching and rolling, and you never know into whose pocket ttho ball will go. On this speech the "Financial Times" comments, relative to co-operation of Capital and Labour: "His advice-is thoroughly good, but there is also the need orthe Government to co-opetrato as well as the chief partners of industry and commerce. ... If the reaction wa* inevitable, it could have been foreseen, and more adequate steps taken to meet it and mitigate its effects. .We could! have wished that the Government's own policy had exhibited evidences of this foresight. . . . Moreover, there should have been applied more vigorously and intelligently that retrenchment in national expenditure whioh would have set an example to the country, and deprived certain sections of the community of the last excuse for wasteful outlay." • ,