Back to Labour index
Back to article index
Previous
Merits of the Whitley scheme of industrial negotiation
Our nation has a right to be thankful for the amount of industrial negotiating machinery that was established under the Whitley Scheme between the last war and the outbreak of this one. A real analysis of the value of that machinery and its contribution to the war effort by adjusting differences between the State, the employers and the Trade Unions, is worth a careful study.
First, it had a remarkable and steadying influence when the crisis fell upon us.
Second, it permitted discussion on wages and conditions problems on a footing which allowed every factor to be taken into account. Problems of inflation, deflation, costs, future of the industry, problems of management and of operation are all now brought within the realm of discussion, and in that discussion the influence, knowledge and experience of the last post-war settlement have been borne in mind.
It is a form of machinery which has produced the beginnings of an industrial democracy; it will, as time goes on, probably take on new and more important functions. It has been most effective in breaking down divisions and barriers that hitherto existed, and perhaps one of the most remarkable things about it is that all that was needed in order that it might function in wartime was the addition of a national arbitration procedure. I appealed to both sides to regard themselves as trustees on behalf of the nation and, particularly, to act in that spirit if they desired to preserve this form of industrial negotiation both during the war and at the end of the war. An examination of the cases that have had to go before the court would reveal that this appeal was responded to; and in the main the cases that have had to be decided by independent determination have been primarily those in which the State was the Paymaster, and industry was in a rather difficult position in determining it.
There has been much criticism of what is called the absence of a wage policy, and suggestions have been made that we ought to have adopted some form of wage regulation which would have dealt with the whole of the problem en masse. I have taken the opposite view.
Such a procedure would not permit of adjustments in the industries themselves based on changes in operation, on skill, on the introduction of women, on upgrading and a variety of other matters which happily the joint machinery has been able to deal with without their ever really coming before the public at all. And yet in every one of these cases there were the germs of very serious disputes if the negotiating skill, ability and executive authority of the respective organizations on both sides had not been at the disposal of the State.
There is, of course, the further question of general adjustments based on the change in the value of money and purchasing power. Well, I do not believe that any better settlements would have been reached if we had tried to deal with them en masse than those which have been made in the respective industries. It would have inevitably caused the introduction of political pressure in the adjustment of wages which might have resulted in very serious mass turmoil at a time like this. I think experience has demonstrated the wisdom of the policy that has been followed.
We have had to introduce great changes—dilution, upgrading, the provision of man power for the Services, the movement of people from their usual industries and occupations into others, and the introduction of women. Yet is it not striking that at no period in history have actual stoppages or interruptions in production been on a lower level than since the outbreak of this war? It can be readily understood, therefore, how reluctant we should be to throw over the present method of dealing with this problem for some untried and doubtful political procedure which might well produce disorder and chaos.
Another important point to remember is that this criticism has not come from those who are in the habit of dealing with these problems but in the main from those who have had little or no experience in the handling of industrial relations.
The situation which has arisen, and which will continue to develop, probably in a more intense form, as the problem of man and woman power has to be dealt with in greater and greater detail, will call for the utmost discussion and accommodation between the two sides, and I am glad to have this machinery readily available to assist the Government in coming to right conclusions.
Our policy was based on the principle that we were likely to get quicker and better results by the voluntary discipline of the people—expressed probably for the sake of equality and universality in its operations, in the Orders in Council and in Regulations and legislation, but actually expressing the desire for self-abnegation and submission to the public need. And if you would follow through with great care the Orders that have been issued—and they are legion—you will recognize the great care that has been taken not to abuse the power of the Executive, but to rely on good will and national response.
Whenever we have erred or gone too far, even in words, it has been very striking how Parliament has intervened and, to use the Trade Union phrase, "referred it back for further consideration."
One of the steps I had to take was to make provision to make strikes and lockouts unnecessary, and I am glad it was done by consent. The National Arbitration Tribunal has been established which, together with the Industrial Court, and the other forms of independent tribunals, has provided adequate means to get all difficulties adjusted fairly; but our wage policy rests in the main on the proper and full use of the wage machinery existing in each industry.