Prosperous industry means better conditions
Horsham Times, 2 July 1958, p. 3
The history of trade unions goes back well over 100 years and I thought it may be interesting to have a look at it in general terms to see how the trade unions have grown and how they have fought for their members and achieved worthwhile and lasting benefits for them.
In the beginning in the early 1800s, the British Government in England tried to prevent the formation of what today would be called trade unions.
Many of the activities which unions today employ as normal bargaining were in those times banned. Indeed there were periods in which the law prevented more than two or three people meeting together in any public place.
This of course prevented factory workers from being able to plan course of action which would lead to an improvement in their pay or in their working conditions.
By the middle of the 19th century, this general dislike of trade unions had largely disappeared and trade associations of one kind or another were becoming accepted by the general public. Up to 1900 trade union leaders of the day religiously believed that the union should remain outside politics, that they should try to press for their requirements by actions that were non-political in nature.
This policy proved to bring slow result for the unionists and, therefore, about 1900 it was changed and in the early 1900s we found Labor MPs in the British Parliament for the first time.
The same movement has taken place in Australia and trade union organisations seek to benefit the people whom they sought to represent through direct political action. In the background of political labor (perhaps more than in trade unionist policy) has been the nationalisation or socialisation of many industries.
However, it would be correct to say that the actions that have brought the most lasting benefits to unionists would be those which have led to shorter working hours, higher wages and better working conditions. After all, for the man working in the factory the important things are his condition of work, his hours of work and his wages.
DISAPPOINTED
After the great period of nationalisation by the British Government in 1945 the workers in those industries were often sadly disappointed.
They thought that with nationalisation that they were going to have control of their industry, but in effect nationalisation meant that their boss, so-called, was bigger and more untouchable and more remote than ever, and this disappointment has been shown in the figures of industrial unrest which are much greater in nationalised industries than they are in privately owned industries.
With the growth of trade unions it was only natural that some organisation or machinery should be established whereby the Unions and the employers can both put their cases so that an impartial judgment may be made on wages, hours of work or on working conditions.
Australia has evolved a Federal Arbitration Court, an industrial court to fulfil this purpose for people working under Federal awards and the States have their own tribunals.
The institution of these tribunals or arbitration courts has on the whole been a good thing for Australia because it has meant that arguments over wages have very largely been outside the direct political field in the hands of an independent authority.
In Australia, a greater number of men belong to unions than ever before and this places great responsibility on Union leaders to see that they use their power wisely and with good sense.
I believe it is true to say that, with perhaps notable exceptions such as the leadership of the waterside workers or the coal miners in the late 1940s, union leaders have used their power with this sense of responsibility.
Now I want to make one final point. When a manufacturer makes an article for sale, he puts as high a price on it as he thinks he can get for the number he can turn out. In fixing this price he, or course, must take into account his competition from other firms.
Also in selling their primary produce, farmers and primary producers sell for the highest price that they can possibly get and this is perfectly natural and reasonable.
LABOR AND SKILL
It is the conduct that we expect these people to follow, but the unionist in general has not got any wool to sell and his not any manufactured articles to sell. He has only one thing for sale – his own labor and his own skill.
It is quite reasonable and I believe natural, therefore, to expect him to sell these things for the highest possible price. It is his union that carries on this fight for its individual members and it is for this reasons that the Federal Arbitration Court in large measure in determining wage rates uses for it standard the highest wage that the industry can bear and at the same time remain competitive and profitable. No one benefits if an industry goes bankrupt.
The well being of the wage earner and the employer can only be achieved if each realises that they are dependent on each other. Australians should be pleased that both groups over the last few years come to have a better understanding and regard for this mutual dependence.