THE BRITISH STRIKE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3035, 13 May 1926, Page 3

THE BRITISH STRIKE.

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER,

In view of the interest which is being taken in the existing industrial position in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister (the Right Hon. J. G. Coates) has issue, for public information, the following statement, which sets out a brief summary of events leading up to the present position, and 1 which has been framed from official communications received from England. During the last twelve years the coal industry in Great Britain has been reduced to a thoroughly unhealthy state and severe economic depression by the war, by Government control during the war, and circumstances accompanying decontrol, by contraction of markets, the instability of currencies, and other well-known post-war phenomena. ATTEMPTED IMPROVEMENTS Successive Governments of all three parties have appointed commissions to inquire into the industry. All have agreed on the necessity for certain measures of reorganisation in the interests of efficiency, such as the closing of the least profitable pits, amalgamation of small units into larger companies, and organised selling agencies. Following on the Sankey Commission, the Government, in July, 1919, when unemployment figures after demobilisation were high, and discontent /widespread, passed the Seven-hours Act, which had the effect of decreasing the output per man and of raising the cost of production. Following decontrol of the mines in March, 1921, a three months’ strike took place,- in which the miners fought for a greater uniformity of wage by means of pooling the resources of all the collieries. This demand failed, and the strike ended in a new wage agreement, which was widely hailed as a scientific application of profit-sharing by districts. The pre-war method of regulating the wages according to fluctuation in the selling price of coal, and in the volume of trade, was superseded by a method which shared actual proceeds in defined proportion between the miners and the owners. The workmen were guaranteed a minimum level of wage called 20 per cent, on standard, and equal, in fact, to an aver-' age of about 44 per cent, over the earnings in 1914 or of higher wage equivalent to 85 per cent, of proceeds in each district after meeting costs other than wages. The 85 was later raised to 87.

AGREEMENTS TERMINATED.

Towards the end of 1922, after a period of depression, the position of the industry improved. In 1923 the tonnage of coal exported reached a figure of nearly 80 million tons. But much of this was due to the stimulus resulting from the French occupation of the Ruhr. In January, 1924, the Miners’ Federation demanded a higher minimum, and gave notice to_ terminate the 1921 agreement. In June, after the Buckmaster inquiry, under pressure from the Labour Government, and in spite of strong opposition from the owners, the miners’ minimum wages w r ere raised from 20 per cent, to 33 1-3 per cent, above the standard. About the same time trade deteriorated, and within the next twelve months hundreds of pits were closed and tens of thousands of miners thrown permanently out of work. The owners accordingly gave notice to terminate the 1924 agreement, and asked for a reversion to the Eight Hours Act. Another inquiry was followed by another deadlock in the summer of last year, the miners claiming that reorganisation would render wages reduction unnecessary. In September a Royal Commission was appointed under Sir Herbert Samuel to make recommendation for improvement in the industry, the Government meanwhile undertaking by means of a subsidy to maintain wages at the level of the 1924 agreement until May 1, 1926. MINERS REJECT OFFERS.

The commission reported on March 6. They condemned the subsidy, made important suggestions for reorganisation, and recomended State purchase of minerals. They pointed out that reorganisation must take time, and seeing that three-quarters of the coal was being produced at a loss, declared in favour of the men going back meanwhile to a wage level more like that of 1921. They were against reverting to the eight-hour day, though willing to see adjustment within the limit of hours now being worked. They favoured district wage variation subject to effective supervision by a national conference. -The Cabinet undertook to give effect to the report if the other parties would also do so. The owners gave a general acceptance of the report, but the miners consistently refused to accept it, as it recommended temporary reduction in wages. The owners were unwilling to fix a minimum by national negotiation, but eventually they yielded under pressure. The miners’ refusal to accept any reduction whatever in wages, or, in its place, any increase in hours, was maintained until the end. The owners accordingly posted at the pit districts an offer of wages on a seven-hours’ basis and a much more attractive offer for an eighthour day. These offers were rejected. The Government induced the owners to modify their attitude to national negotiation and to ne-

gotiate nationally without reserve. The final offer made by the owners was a uniform 20 per cent, on the standard (as under the 1921 agreement) for an eight-hour day. The miners remained unwilling,to consider wage reduction until the possibility "of reorganisation had been explored. This could only mean continuance of the subsidy. The Government has already spent over £23,000,000 on it and had promised a further £3,000,000 to smooth the downward revision of wages and displacement of labour which would result from adopting the report.

“THE LAST STRAW.”

Negotiations broke down in the early hours of Saturday morning, May 1, but were resumed later in the day with the Trade Unions General Council acting on behalf of the miners. The objected to the miners being asked to consent in advance to an immediate reduction of wages in return for an unspecified reorganisation of the industry. The Government pressed for a sincere acceptance of the report as a whole with its wage implication. Conversation continued on Sunday evening, May 2. Meanwhile it had come to the knowledge of the Government that on Sunday afternoon the Trade Union Executives had ordered a general strike for Monday night, May 3. Despite this the Prime Minister sought a way out and was in close touch with the union negotiators when news came late on Sunday night that the publication of the “Daily Mail” and possibly other papers was being stopped. At this point Cabinet declared that before it could continue negotiations the Union Committee must repudiate the strike actions which had already taken place and must unconditionally withdraw the instructions for the general strike. That still remains the position of the Government. “OBJECT OF STRIKE HAS FAILED.” an official summary. London, May 11. Mr. Baldwin, in an interview said: “The beginning of the second week of the strike is reassuring. The community has shown itself not only determined to overcome the threat against its constitutional and political rights, but fully capable of defending them effectively and calmly. There is not any doubt that the transport services can be carried out effectively, and are improving every hour. The ultimate victory of the nation and the cause of constitutional Government is in fact assured. There must be no confusion between the coal stoppage and the general strike. They are distinct issues. The coal negotiations will, I hope, be resumed directly the general strike is cancelled by the Trades Union Council. Then I will continue efforts to see that in the settlement, justice be done to both miners and owners. None of the objects of the Trades Union Council in decreeing the strike, has been attained; the nation has not been paralysed; the hold-up has failed. “It" is to be hoped that before long, the Trades Union Council, and the men who obeyed the strike call, will realise the futility of the strike, the collapse of which is inevitable. When it is over, Britain will have done much to protect the political institutions or the world. The country has shown, that neither now, nor in the future, will unconstitutional interference be tolerated.”