Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12th, 1920. CO-OPERATION. .

Hokitika Guardian, 12 October 1920, Page 2

Hokitika Guardian & Evening Star TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12th, 1920. CO-OPERATION. .

It now seems to be generally recognis ed, says an Australian commentator tliat the causes of industrial unres lie deeper than in dissatisfaction a the rate of wages. The worker (to us, q the term in the popular but misleadinj sense) accepts a rise gladly enough; ii fact, he continually demands more, bu he is not content with concessions o m this nature. He finds that his condi - tions are not very materially improved he suspects that the entrepreneur ma; actually make a profit out of the in crease granted, and he wishes now t “ have an effective voice in the manage mont of the enterprise to the success o which his labour contributes. Alread; both in Ehgland and in the Unitei States—till recently a highly individu alistic country industrially—experihent r ’ have been made in the direction of giv ing the employees a measure of contro and in recent work entitled “Man t< Man” Mr John Leitch, an American describes some of those with which h ns an “industrial physician” was asso ' dated. Tlie war made the industria position difficult in America, for al save munition makers. These were c a r ning enormous profits and could offe: big wages; other industries were face< witjli a serious labour. Their handi wer e constantly striking for a highe: rate; if it were not conceded the? e would simply go round the cornor to : munition works, where they got whai they asked. A point, was reached whei H the other industries could not keej up the competition; “munitions” outbk them every time ) and it was clear thnl if they were to carry on at all thej must offer some attraction over ant above that of pay. It wa9 at this stage that Mr Leiteli was called in to prescribe for various sick concerns which were on the verge of extinction. His procedure was always the same. He fi'rlst explained his proposals to the mangement. They were not invariably welcome; his ideas seemed often quite revolutionary to a class brought up on the doctrine of industrial autocracy; but as his advice was the last resource it was accepted. Then he explained them to a meeting of the employees, insisting that the interests of both were really identical. The employees, of course, had heard this sort of thing before; they were often very sceptical, but agreed that no harm could be done by giving his system a. trial. It resolved itself into a combination of profit sharing and joint control. The entrepreneur had to lay all the cards on the table, to be content with a stipulated share of the profits, and to allow reptre T sentatives of his employees access to his books. The employees had their assembly, which dismissed matters arising out of the work and sent delegates to a board which settled general questions of policy and administration. This system was introduced into a score of concerns, differing very widely in character and in the type of worker employed. Mr Leitch describes itq operation in each, land declares that it succeeded everywhere beyond all expectations. Its reshits were increased production, reduced waste of material, bigger pay to labour and profits to capital, and, above all, continuity of work. In not a single one of the twenty factories under review has tlielre been a strike since he took it in hand. The employees, having a. direct financial interest in conscientious and efficient labour, gradually assumed the responsibility for the whole discipline of the shop. If anyone scamped his work or went slow on the job they saw to it that either he amended his ways or went elsewhere. Friction between the executive and the workers ceased. Where ' there had been antagonism and grudging effort, there was now goodwill an* a spirit of zealous co-bperation. Tn the introduction the Hon. G. N. Barnes the well-known English Labour leader, observes that the man who can discover or popularise a method by which fair play and harmony mav be firmly established in the workshops of the world will deserve a monument as great as St. Paul’s. Can Mr leitch claim to be that man ? Certainly his system lias justified itself in twenty American factories where conditions are different? Mjr Barnes approves of its general principles, but points out that it would he difficult to apply them without modification to industry in Britain (and, one might perhaps add, in Australia). In America trade unionism, though militant is not the developed organisation that it is with us. It' is, in fact, “rather more of a gesture

than ail organisation.” Differences in race, language, and standards of culture have prevented it as yet from developing a common outlook, and becoming a cohesive force. Here the opposi-* tion to co-partnership comes from the unions rather than from the entrepreneur. Th 0 latter, it is true, may bo reluctant to surrender his right to conduct bis business in bis own way, but his reluctance can be overcome by the logic of events. But the unions see in co-partnership a device for diverting them from their goal; Mr Leitch’s system, in particular, they would criticise as an insidious attempt to weaken unionism by creating sectional interests in any given industry. Moreover, Mr Leitchh’s method, while promoting peace in the individual factory, does not in itself provide for general disputes with regard to conditions of labour which are with us more frequent and infinitely more unfortunate in their consequences. It would not prevent contented employees from being called out in a- quarrel in which they had no direct concern. However there is no doubt that there is room for advance tipon the broad lines suggested by him; his emphasis on the importance of mutual confidence and a willingness to give and to take as between employer and employee is much to the point, and Mr Barnes’ introduction is a. model of good sense.