ENGLISH LABOUR TROUBLES

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 20, 24 January 1924, Page 13

ENGLISH LABOUR TROUBLES

UNION DEMANDS NEXT MONTH

Lord Inchcape, in i addressing the P an^ °-„Tu 6tlS B p11.. 1?* Member last, writes The Post's " London correspondent, touched on the London Dock strike oi^July last, ahis atnke, he said, was a breadh of a national agreement endorsed by the men. He wished the men could realise how seriously such stoppages retard the revival of trade and how much they increase unemployment. They heard a good deal in these days about the cost of living and a better standard of life. He was satisfied that every employer of labour in the country desired to improve the condition of the workers, but it was patent that unless people were prepared to work harder, and thus help the re-vn-a of our foreign trade, unemployment would tend to increase. The unions now threatened to demand higher wages from lot February, 1924. Shipowners had, he said, to choose between closing down their business or conceding the men's demands If the shppowners and the Port of London Authority refused the increase, th» oid story would be repeated, and men. willing to work at the present rate of 10s a.day would bo prevented by picketing In resisting these demands they were merely fighting for the public, who eventually had to pay. : In his judgment the remedy for unemployment Jay in the hands of the trade unions. If the unions would relax their rule 3 and for a year or two give economic conditions fres play, diminished production coats would find world market* for'an increased output of manufactured goods. Real wages would not be reduced as the purchasing power of money would be increased. To earn 20s, which will buy only 10s worth of goods at pre-war value, was, he said, of no advantage to anybody. It was folly to keep up nominal wages, shorten hours, and restrict production at a time when a million idle people were costing £50,000,000 a..year, the whole of it, in effect, a tax on the workers. To get rid of unemployment would be to exchange 50 milhoiis of money which is unproductive for 50 millions of productive money, with a reaction upon the welfare of our population which it would be difficult to assess.