LABOUR UNREST IN BRITAIN

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 169, 11 April 1919, Page 7

LABOUR UNREST IN BRITAIN

v ; LORD LEVERIIULME ON ITS CAUSES

A STIRRING SPEECH

Lord Leverhulmt, the founder and . head of the great Sunlight Soap Works, and one of the most progressive .employers in Britain, made an unusually interesting speech on the labour situation in the House of Lords on February , 20. To his mind labour unrest was the healthiest sign in the country at the present time. There was no unrest of tho Bolshevist type among our soldiers returning from the front. The Bolshevists we had in this country were the men who resisted conscription, and generally had not proved. themselves good citizens. (Cheers.) There was no deeprooted emotion in this country. Lei. them consider what a strike was. Tliero ■was no commodity bought and sold in which a small strike did not take plaen as to price. He did not see how they could with advantage deprive men of the right to use these means common to all for the only commodity they had lo sell, their labour. (Hear, heaT.) It would 6eem therefore, that we must bear patiently with this state of affairs. It was n curious coincidence that that day attention had ten called to the inadequate pay of the clergy, and tho complaint applied to Nonconformist ministers as w;eil. •He had never heard of their striking, and they, could not see that, the consciences of those who attended church and chapel were le?s amenable ,lo their duty to the clergy than they were when granting rises to their workpeople. For 3fl years np to the outbreak of wnrthe wages of organised lnhon" i*nd risen abont Id. per hour. In the four years of the war there ha:l been strikes in rapid succession,, and tho rise which hail taken place in tho wages of organised labour amounted to over 100 nor cent, lilad we not. rather been (-caching the 'lesson that scarcity of labour had brought advantages bv the operation of , strikes which a plentiful supply of labour had not brought? Where no strikes had' taken place salaries' had not ten I advanced. It was. deplorable, but that w«« Hie poMtion. There was deep-rooted suspicion and distrust between emplover and enwloyi'd which ought not to exist. That r-tirelv arose from misunderstanding. It had been a mutual advantage thnt employers and the sons of employer- 3 and employees had been fighting shoulder to 'shoulder against a common- enemy. It l.ad brushed away many misunderstanding l .: Wo had no reason to be afra'.d of linbnnv. I" no country were strikes moro drastically and effectively dealt with than in Australia wider a Labour Government. We should l>ear in inind th«t the workman was not a machine to be kont well oiled a»d with high wages and cood housing. Every aspiration of ihe workman to-day would lift him higher pnr] malt" him have vew asnirations tomorrow. We should always have labour unrest if we were to be a healthy eomjuu'uty. He was « convinced believer in the principles of co-partnership,, and had put them into operation to as_ great on extent as anvone. The objection of the men wa.s that tho rividends were not Mifficiently hiirli io be of interest to l.'">m. They expected profits'to be higher than are r.r ever , ("in lie. They had an inflated idea of what the nrefits were, and that was oi' 11 of the enilfS of unhealthy unrest- The sum of 450 millions had been mentions! a' earned bv profits. Taking that figure as the Gov-prnment-share and calculating what, had been the oxczss profit of the employer. t'-ov M-oulil <Hl fl'i't if an arrangement had been made with tho workpeople at the. outbreak of war that, instead of ha v. Ing an increase of wages they should have the "-ess profits, of their employers, they y-nnld have jurd* a very poor bargain. (Hear, hear.) The excess profits re. mai"in.g in the hands of the employers •would not have given the workneople 4s. pnch per week. whe vp as the advance in wnoes. more often without n strike than with it. had been considerably over .£1 per week. Therefore the rise in w#»«s Iwl b°en more than five times the, in? creased profits to the employer.' It was: ignorance on this subject that they ou"ht remove. From th» iPcome-tax T"turn they would «et an'idea of what they could give to the workpeople if. pro. fit-sharing were universal. In 191R he estimate' 1 th"* tV nrofit= r{ bn»' ,n »«R omounted to POO millions. This would be first of all snhipft to deduction of interest on the capital.

' Total Profits and > He wag confident that tho total profits of iradc, after deducting interest on. capital and management expenses, if it had gone to the workers and others enin the trade, would not have raised their wages by r.nother 4s. a week per head. Those were facts the workers were never told. Whilst the war had been poing on, wages, rightly and properly, had advanced by over 100 per cent., and jf the workers had received, instead of that 100 per cent., the whole of the profits made in all industries, the whole of that portion excess profits which,did not go to the Government, their rise in wages would have been under 10s. n week, instead'of .£l. Those were facts lie wanted the workers to understand. If they were to prevent strikes, it was their duty to see thnt the worker was properly acquainted with the conditions tinder which he worked nnd the conditions .which affected a rise in wages. There alwavs would be disputes, but a strike benefited neither employer nor employed. If a strike took place and the employer won, what did he find? He found that the workmen went back soured and discontented, with •the result that tho employer did not get the output he was getmg before the strike. When an employer received a request for an increase of wages or reduction of hours, which if refused point blank would lead to a strike, he srtiouM take his workpeople into a partnership of this nature, in which he should say to them, "I recognise your desire for higher income, in order to meet the higher cost of living, and also to live on a higher scale, and I also recognise your desiTe for more leisure to get to tho green fields. Now, can we get those things, or are they out of our reach? Don't let us forget, either of us, that our living depends on a successful industry, that this country is dependent upon its overseas trade, and that we are in competition with the whole world. (Hear, heair.) Now let us see how we can get. shorter hours and hiffher wages. If there is no addition to the production you workers will be tho sufferers. You are 95 per cent, consumers. If coal goes up in prices you feel it morn keenly than any other section of tho community. Eveiy article that you advance in price by a strike for increased wages and J'eduction of hours will not benefit you if it advances the price of the commodity." This country had got to produce so cheaply that our articles would be sought all over the world.

Many of .the workers were at present obsessed with tho idea that their best interest was in limiting production. They thought that excessive production, full warehouses, meant unemployment—an entirely false view. In the United States wages were much higher because the trade unions there did not place nnv limitations upon output. There they dill not object to a man's output being as great as over lie liked. Tile figures of production per worker in this coiimltv and in the United States showed that the output per workman there was considerably more than three times thul of workers in this country. Why could not I hev nut theiv heads toother, and say to their workpeople: "You want more ivages and shorter hours. You can only get (hem hv reducing the cost of proo'uetion, otherwise you will find that though your wasps have sone up their purcliasinij uower is reduced? If all comli'neil tiwother in eude-ivonvin',' t-j do Iheir duty,' Ihev would find that the bogy of strides would be shorn of ils terrors, Aiui.tJn.s fTjtiotj'v qui, , !''v raise its position as a prod lie: i!!? nation.