WORKERS AS PARTNERS

Dominion, 14 August 1919, Page 6

WORKERS AS PARTNERS

LOED ROBERT CECIL'S.ADVOCACY. Ix>rd Eobort Cecil, JI.P., presiding re- , cently at the annual meeting of the .-.Labour Co-Parthership Association, said ...that they were faced with a great worldwide industrial crisis, and they were entitled to say that it tho advice of. the association had been taken some of tho .more, acute symptoms would have been .avoided. (Hear, hear.) Much of the (present situation wag caused by the i-.wholesale destruction of capital during the, war. He had been given, tho opportunity during the last few weeks of studying the economic situation, and he .W>uld say that all countries were suffering from tho loss of the fly-wheel of in'dustry. The only remedy wns etrenu. ous and united effort on. the part o everyone concerned. Many :of them .were hoping that by some mysterious operation they were going to -find, a remedy in the payment of a huge indemnity by our enemies. Hβ. believed that if the Germans could be'made to pay far the. whole cost of the war there jwvuld be no objection oa the score of ' jtistice—(hear, hear)—but in' hie ■ judg•Jttent there , was no chance whatover of obtaining from Grmany such large sums -as would .free the British people from the necessity and duty of strenuous and jmited effort. Lord Bobert,. proceeding, rgkcd .:,wnether they could hope to face'the difficult times ahead if they went on with iiheir old organisation, of industry. He ■ was dear that they could not. (Hear, wihear.) . Nothing was more oertain than ■cthat in-the next few years there would ■'ibeia revolutionary change in industry. •JGhe: one thing that oamo out was that i. it was olearly autocratic, The who,le r.'opncrol of industry was in the hands of •the employer, and the workers had no share in determining tho conduct of tin., industry. The disaster that the failure of a great industrial organisation produced for tho worker was out of all proportion, to that Buffered by the employer. (Hear, hear.) He thought ;.that the workera woro entitled to Siiy that they should have some share 'in. the management of tho industry in Which they were concerned, He was not going to discuss nationalisation) but (Whether it waro. rigjit or wrong lie was quito euie that nationalisation . would mot give the workers any eharo in the control of industry. Co-partnership did give a share in profits and management. 'Industrial troubles were not merely questions of wages or hours of lnbour, but were due to the aspirations of every Anglo-Saxon to control his own destiny. (Hear, hear.) Ho was satisfied that the principlo was sound, and that they could ■ overcome the difficulties in every industry. (Cheers.) Mr. Clynes eaid ho was most interested in that aspect of their work relating to profit-sharing. He believed that most industrial troubles in this country arose from difforonoes about sharing profits. Profit-sharing was a .plan for )i~ extraction from, industry of the best that could bo got from it for tho beneiit of all concerned in tho industry. The hostility of trade union officials was often incurred in. advance to profit-shav-ing schemes by tho folly of employer.--in their announcement and application of profits without.any consultation with tho workmen or thoir representatives. However, this was rather a thing of the past. There appeared to be ovidenco now of a much better spirit on tho part ; of employers, and more conception of the great human olement in industry. The human factor in production should be well paid, but it 'would pay that factor to aim at tho highest production in order to dimmish the cost of production, and so inci'caso the purchasing power <>• wages. (Cheors.) He saw no reason why trade union officials should any longer assumo an attitude of hostility or suspicion towards co-partnership. Ho thought it was the business of statesmen and of trade union leaders to do something for tho movement. (Cheers.)