INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 30 November 1927, Page 4

INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATION

yyHii ns said yesterday, there is reason for good hope in the mere fact that leaders of thought in industrial circles at Home Among both employers and employees are agreed upon the necessity for cordial co-operation, it will be just as well to understand that there may be differences as to how this is to be applied. The London “Times” in discussing the respective declarations of the Trades Unions Congress and the Employers’ Confederation, which were quoted here yesterday, point this out. Tor instance, the* Employers voiilederation has indicated the opinion that the methods of attaining the results of mutual understanding must vary from industry to industry, and therefore records the view' “that it is in the individual industries—in their organisations and in the day-to-day contact in the works—that the most ready and effective means present themselves for developing and applying the spirit of good will,’’ which the Confederation will at all times be anxious to further. This reply is supremely practical; and unfortunately its practical tone, unless it is wisely read, may be suspected of a coldness that would not be consistent with the vital concern which employers individually and collectively have in promoting,as well as in enjoying, industrial peace. The possibility of misunderstanding should not be allowed to continue. It is with the method of establishing co-operation that the employers’ reply is mainly the “Times” continues. There has been ill-advised talk of a big conference or “an industrial Parliament” and other dreamy projects for initiating a peace in industry campaign. Those are not the roads by which to proceed. They are disapproved and distrusted as much by the trade union leaders as by the employers. The circumstances require practical and not spectacular measures, and yet those measures can be. and ought to be, animated by cordial determination. The real difference between Trades Union Congress and the Employers’ Confederation is one of method. Mr. Citrine, secretary of the former, emphasises the desirability of these two largest organisations of .employers and workpeople entering into such relations with each other as will permit of the drawing of general principles, the working out of which would presumably be left to the organisations in the several industries. The Confederation considers that the industrial steps should be taken by each industry for itself. In other words. Mr. Citrine says “Begin at the top.” The Confederation replies, “Begin at the bottom.” Now’ it is possible to believe that both are right. It is perfectly true that there will not be peace and co-oneration in industry unless those principles are observed in the workshops. Yet the spirit on which the adoption of the principles depends can be fostered from aboveThe Confederation undertakes tn further them at all times and does not consider that their application can be usefully undertaken bv central organisations, which, it must he said in candour, have no power of control over their oonstitutent bodies. Mr Thomas, the railwaymen’s secretary, takes a similar view'. He also holds that a general conference of employers, and workers’ rem-c-"’tntives “would not be practicable because

what ia suitable to one industry would not be suitable to another.” A difference of opinion therefore divides the trade union leaders, fnd thn discussion is still open. An agreed way of going forward with the pol'ey o: co-operation is still to seek, but success onsht ”ot to elude those who seek sincerely.