When progress was reported last evening, I was speaking of the effects of certain factors on wage structures which invalidated wage increases. I pointed out that wages were affected by such things as the cost of living, tax increases and rent increases. If there are increases in the cost of living, in taxes in a Budget or an increase in rents, such as that which the Minister for Local Government has directed the city and county managers to put into effect, they take from the value of a wage agreement. Therefore, it is only commonsense to expect that people on a low average basic wage— perhaps £9 a week might even be high —will seek some readjustment of their wages. There is nothing the Minister or any Government can do to prevent that natural desire to retain at least as much purchasing power as they had at the time of the last agreement. Telling them that there has been an increase of only two per cent in production and that they cannot expect to get more is not much use if the factors I have indicated have reduced their wages by four or five per cent.
This question of production is not a one-sided matter. I would say that the workers' part in increased production is the lesser factor. Surely good management and good tools are required before production can be stepped up? In my experience as a trade union official, I have always found that, provided there were the proper tools in the shape of improved machinery and so long as there was incentive, the management were well able to step up production, and indeed take a share of the profits arising from that increased production. In the Sunday Times of a few weeks ago, there was the case of a shipbuilding yard in the north of England which over the past 15 years was blacklisted as the worst shipyard in Great Britain for strikes. They fell so low that they were pretty well unable to complete a ship in anywhere near the regular period. There were demarcation disputes between the various craftsmen. However, a new manager was brought in. The first thing he did was to take out the filthy old tables and benches from the canteen. He changed his foremen. He brought representatives of the workers and trade unions for discussions weekly. Now that yard is the best run shipyard in Great Britain. That had nothing to do with the workers, but was brought about by the manager.
I suggest the Department of Labour would be doing much better if they endeavoured to promote between trade unions and employers such long-term agreements as the four year agreements signed between the unions and Aer Lingus and the unions and Messrs. Guinness instead of threatening the unions that unless they did something even union leaders could not do—compel workers to accept unlimited restraint — he would be forced to introduce legislation to compel them. The threat of the big stick will not be effective, but his Department have a useful part to play in the negotiations for long-term agreements between unions and employers.
Trade unionists will admit that there is a multiplicity of unions catering for the one type of worker. In that problem, too, the Minister has a function. He will get co-operation from the unions. I am sure he is aware that at present negotiations are going on between at least two unions to see if some form of federalisation or amalgamation can be effected. Whatever difficulties there are—neither is my unions and I have no personal knowledge of this beyond what I read in the newspapers—I would suggest his officers would do well to approach these unions and offer their services to help bring about the proposed amalgamation at an earlier date than might otherwise happen.
We in the Labour Party — and I think I can speak for the trade union movement also—welcome the establishment of this Department and the appointment of the present Minister. All I am afraid of is that he will allow his understanding of the problem, as indicated in his speech of 12 months ago, to be undermined by some people either inside or outside the Cabinet who would appear to be forcing him to take a tougher line and who hope it will be effective. I do not believe it will. Nobody wants a head-on clash with the Government, in particular workers endeavouring to do their jobs and to get the best pay possible. We realise as well as anybody that any industry can pay out in wages only as much as will permit it to operate at some profit. Industrialists do not run factories for fun; they run them for profit. But it is understandable that workers, realising a firm has given increased dividends to directors and shareholders as a result of increased profits, would also seek their share of the increase. As Deputy O'Leary said, the Minister and his Department should approach the unions and employers as a neutral, a go-between. I think that should be the effect of his Department on the economic life of the country.
