INDUSTRIAL UNREST

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 144, 13 March 1919, Page 6

INDUSTRIAL UNREST

SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS d O 1' 1 V LECTURE BY MR. B. E. MURPHY 1 C "The Present Industrial Unrest" was t the subject of a lecture delivered before t the Accountant Students' Society last night by Mr. B. E. Murphy, M.A., LL.B., 8.C0m., Lecturer in Economics at Victoria College. Mr. Murphy treated the labour troubles from an economic aspect and discussed some of the palliative sdiomes and proposals for reconstruction that have been put forward. The lecturer had a large and interested audience of members of the society and visitors. Jtr. Murphy said that the war was over and the British Empire was no longer c threatened with destruction from with- i out. But the new danger wi>« of col- ( lapse from within. Civilisation as the \ world knew it had broken down in Rus- 'J sia two yeara ago; it was breaking down f in Germany, and it ivas. threatening to 1 break in Italy, France, and even in 1 Britain. He wished to'discuss the posi- < Hon from an economic, and not from a c political, standpoint. Industrial unrest t was no new tiling. It had been seeu first l in Britain in the .fourteenth century, i after the great epidemic known n.s tho "Black Dentil." The upheaval of that t period had had its parallel in later ceil- < tuiries. He thought it a great pity that c industrial history was not taught, in the ( schools. Histury showed that many of t tho_ problems now lieing 'faced by the f nation had been faced by it on other 1 occasions, and with varying success. For ( example, there had been an agitation in the'time of Queen Elizabeth to loosen 1 the hold of Germans on the non-ferrous metals in England. l The two eliief factors in producing industrial unrest, said Mr: Murphy, were i living conditions, including wages, and i shop control. Mr. Murphy mentioned'the ( growth of the factory system and the i capitalist, employer. The development of < that system had given the employer 1 an important strategic advantage, and at first it had put i the_ worker in an extremely bad ( position. There, had been' a stage in England after the Napoleonic wars when i it seemed that the nation might collapse j owing to the breaking down'of the moral 1 fibre of the working classes. The em- i plover had exercised untrammelled power, and the workers had been compel- i led to work and starve nnder appalling conditions. Tho exasperation produced i among tho workers in those days had I survived the improved conditions secured j bv the action of the workers' organisa- i tions. ■ In the early days of the factory 1 system it had been a criminal offence for ( tho workers to organise in support of a i demand for higher wages and better con- ( ditions. Seven British workers were actually transported to Botany Bay in the 'twenties of lost century for forming a union. The interests of those days had been "determined io have no Bolshevism in .England." The lecturer traced briefly the development of early economic theory. Stato interference in support of the right of the workers to make collectivo bargains had been necessarv to save the. nation from tho disastrous results of the "natural laws" laid down by tho first economists. Labour s leaders then, as now, had been regarded i bv the employers and by many other people, as extremists, and as impracticable people. The "wages fund" doctrine had been evolved to prove that trade union action was futile and worse. That theorv had held that Capital had only so much money to pay out in wages, and that the division of the total wages fund among the whole body of workers, would give the real wage. The theorists had argued from this standpoint that no effort of tho. workers could really increase wages. The fallacy of this theory lay in the foct that wages were paid not capital, but from the continuing product of labour. The "go slow" policy had been one of tho workers' replies to this theory. Other theories had their day, As a matter of fact, there was no theory of labour that would meet nil the facts. But certain fundamental truths could be stated. Wages in the long run could not fall below the cost of subsistence, because if they did the . workers would die. The workers must be paid enoutrh to enable them to live and raise families, On "the other hand, the workers could not bo paid more than t(ie whole surplus of industry after enough had been paid the other factors to induce them' to continue their functions. Between those two levels, labour would get just what it was strong enough to take. That was the fundamental fact of tho situation., Tho employer and the worker had to fight for the surplus, and up to file present tho workers, in spite of the aid of laws and unions, had been unable to get living conditions of a kind that men and women could be expected to accept contentedly. The fight for this surplus of production was "the class war," and the fight had been conducted in a way that inevitably produced unhappy results. Tho nations had sought "social peace, with social justice as a by-pro-duct." The settlement of industrial un- , rest demanded the reversal of these rela- . tive positions of these aims. , ' i Mr.' Murphy quoted some figures. to show that the industrial system in BritI ain, during the years immediately pro- , ceding tho war, had kept millions of \ workers right on tho subsistence line. The "go-slow" policy by the ■ workers' leaders to be economically unsound. But the workers considered it to be a weapon suited to their needs , under conditions that gave the worker a bare subsistence, and put the whole surplus produce in the hands of the ! capitalist. Industrial war in Britain , ! had b<;en suspended during the Great II War. The workers had agreed to this ] I suspension in the national interests, and ; j had received in return a definite promise ! from the Government that pre-war con- • ditions would be fully restored. But th<\ ; Government could not redeem this pro- ; rnise fully, since the war had brought radical changes in industry. ' The i.ation , could not get back to old conditions, even if it wished to do so, and the Government was faced with the necessity of i reconciling tho just claims of the work.l ers with the new conditions. The Bfitisli Government had tried by means of com- ! missions of inquiry to' find a basis of i adjustment, and the facts that emerged ; from a study of the grievances of the , workers included inadequate wages, poor i honaing, gloomy environment, lack I i of facilities for entertainment. ! and uncomfortable conditions of work. I . Tho workers weie not prepared to tol- | erate theso conditions. Mr. Murphy | mentioned the Whitley report, and said j that it appeared likely to become the I charter of the workers.. This report | proposed to give tho workers a voice in ; the control of industry, and the adjust- ! inent of wages, to fitcure for the workers j a larger 6hare of the surplus product j of labour and the greatest possiblo I security of employment. The British j Government had i.oceptod the principles i embodied, in tho voport. Some employ- j ers in Britain had gone further and i raised tho question rf the limitation of I profits. They recognised that. no busi-1 ness was entitled to make unlimited pro- j fits, and that free competition had not been a success. The alternative to tho | adoption ot' such ■ principles, involving i the allocation of a larger share of i wealth to labour, was the continuance of I the fight between Capital'and Labour, with Labour periodically getting tho worst of it, and retaliating by reducing production. That process could end only in disaster. He believed tlir.t most' employers now were prepared to ailinit that production meant service, tfliey could put their belief into practical form by accepting the limitation of profits on the lines laid down already by prominent British industrialists by recognising the just claims of ihe workers and by securing in return the cessation of the limitation of production. The experiment was worth trying, because the perpetua- • iion of the forms of industrial warfare that had prevailed ' in tho past would wreck the nation. Tn answer to questions, Mr. Murphy i said that he was satisfied Ihe system of ' industrial arbitration in New Zeajand l was played lo a standstill. The Arbitni- i lion Court had been ablo to grant in- i creases in wages for many years, during | a prriod when the tendency of wages was : upwards. The increases probably could ; have been secured by collective bar- i gaining. But arbitration did not mean i peaco any inoro than the verdict of a > Court meant peace between litigants. The ( compulsory arbitration system in New I Zealand had just about reached its limit, i

It could not increase real wages, because the coal; of living rose with every advance in money wages. Ho believed, the compulsory clauses of the Act would bo dropped in the near future. The causes of industrial unrest in New Zealand wero roughly the same as ill England. The workers were not on the bare subsistence line, but they wero not satisfied with tho conditions of occupation and with their share of the products of labour. After answering other questions the lecturer was accorded a hearty vote of thanks.