The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1927. UNIONS AND FINANCE

Southland Times, Issue 20080, 18 January 1927, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1927. UNIONS AND FINANCE

Despite the habitual sneer at the American whenever his genius for business organisation is mentioned, further serious attention is being given to industrial conditions in the republic by responsible British people. The United States was developing* before the Great War, moving to the front rank in commerce and industry so that the citation of American achievements cannot be dismissed airily with the jibe that her success is due to gold wrung from her allies during and after the war period. Lord Riddell, with ill-concealed jealousy, sneered at Henry Ford as an American, but the mass production methods of the United States have been copied by the British manufacturers, and the American advance in industry, coupled with higher wages, is not confined to the motor industry. Jaundiced insults thrown at the Americans, a great nation, the march of which entitles them to some attention, do not help us to understand their methods or to profit by their experience, and it is, therefore, encouraging to find in Britain that the representatives of both capital and Labour are recognising that the United States can be imitated by the older countries in some things with advantage. One of the latest

reminders of the benefits to be gained by following an American lead has come from Mr William Graham, Bachelor of Laws, and a Labour member of the House of Commons. Mr Graham, after a careful examination of conditions in the United States, has drawn attention to the part played by the American Federation of Labour in the country’s industrial development, and the manner in which its policy, differing from the British Trades Union policy, had strengthened the organisation, secured benefits for its members and promoted industrial benefit. The American Federation of Labour regards the strike as a waster of strength, a disperser of funds, and its policy for some years has been to avoid the use of this weapon wherever possible. Its doctrine of industrial peace has not assured absolute freedom from strife, but unquestionably the broad policy of the federation has prevented many conflicts. At the same time funds were conserved and the organisation set out to gain increased purchasing power, decent working conditions, more leisure and security of employment, added to which latterly was a definite place in industrial ownership and control. The British Trades Unionist might say that there is nothing new in these things and he would be right, except that the definite and genuine anti-strike policy, and all that it implies, has not been adopted by the Trades Union Congress. The American Federation of Labour opposes anything suggestive of a separate political organisation. For the most marked difference in the attitudes of the two organisations we must go to the use of union funds. The units of the American Federation of Labour through Labour banks and in other ways are investing accumulated organisation funds and the savings of their members in industrial stocks. The coal strike and general strike in Britain cost the unions between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 in hard cash and the unions won nothing. If that sum had been invested in industrial stocks the worker, apart from the dividends earned, would have been working towards a definite participation in control on a sound basis. Mr Graham says

If British Trades Unionism adheres to its present policy, it will merely postpone the decision which the less advanced American organisations appear already to have reached. In other words they have tumbled to the importance of control . . . Many of us will always regret that the unions did not decide to make a reality of Whitleyism. It may be that it was limited in form; some of its supporters certainly had their tongues in their cheeks. But if Trade Union officials had insisted on its extension, and on their place in the joint review of large issues affecting each industry, they would to-day have been in possession of a mass of information of first-class importance to the Labour and Socialist movement. No one desires to make too much of American union experience, whether in the purchase of industrial stocks or in the operation of the Labour banks; it is probably true that the latter have still to face their real encounter with the orthodox of the United States. The movement has, however, made sufficient progress to lay its finger on vital features in the management of capital which (almost invisibly in Great Britain) exercise great influence on the daily lives and happiness of millions of workers.

Mr Graham is at pains to make his criticism palatable, excusing in advance his recommendation of something American, but the substance of his advice is quite definite: industrial peace, and no encouragement of restriction of output, the accumulation of financial resources with their investment in industrial stocks with the idea of working ultimately to a real participation in the control of industry. He urges that this is not inconsistent with the public ownership policy of the British Labour Party, but it is on that very point, together with the fear that the Trades Unions’ strength will be sapped that most of the schemes for partnership or participation in the control of individual concerns or industries has been opposed on the Labour side. The American Federation of Labour, though its influence over the American workers is proportionately much smaller than that wielded by the Trades Union Congress, has stuck to a policy which so far has produced better results than the militant and costly plan which finally has bankrupted the unions in the Old Country without any compensating gain, save in the discrediting of the warlike extremists.