|
|
| Europe a Nation Machine of Government Modernise Britain Wage-Price Mechanism Frontiers Guerrilla Warfare Spheres of Influence Labour Crisis Cheap Labour Unemployment Balance of Payments Coming Crisis Law and Order Higher Forms
|
Modernise Britain What will happen then to ail the extra goods turned out by re-equipped industry? First, the whole of Britain on higher pay would buy a lot more. . Second, the whole of a united Western Europe (over 300 million customers with Britain included) can be our mass market. Keep American, Japanese and communist goods out and it wi II be a sure market. We would still face the competition of efficient countries like Germany within a united Europe. Make it fair competition. Establish the principle of the same rate of pay for the same job, and with similar conditions of work, throughout Europe. This requires action by a European common government, working with trade unions and employers throughout Europe. Britain has nothing to fear from such competition. But what would happen to British workers themselves? Our outdated industries are overmanned. Modern machines need less workers to run them. If you get rid of overmanning through modernisation, will this not mean vast numbers displaced? It would certainly mean this under the present Labour-Tory system. The answer is to change the system. It is not enough to modernise machines. It can only be done equitably by changing industrial life throughout - for the better and not the worse. A Three Day Week - Two Complete Shifts - With Higher Pay Therefore let us have a really radical change — with the work force of most of our industries are divided into two complete shifts. One-half of the workers would work the first half of-the week; the other half the remaining three days (Sundays of course excluded). The overmanning, problem would be solved when two separate but smaller groups of workers operated the new machines. Two groups of workers on three days each, but the machines run on a six-day week. All jobs would be saved, but with greater efficiency. Innevitabiy there would be exceptions. Trawler crews have to work all out for long periods once they reach the fishing grounds. In agriculture, the weather decides the work; also cows have to be milked seven days a week, and many of our farms today are run by the farmer with a very small permanent staff. Many service industries cannot be included either. All this should be taken into account when deciding rewards, one reason why we demand a positive and flexible wages policy. But in heavy industry and manufacturing, a three-day week can be introduced. It would pay the industrialist, with two three-day shifts, to run his machines for six days a week — provided he has a mass market in a high-wage European system to consume the vastly greater output of that modern equipment. It would also benefit the worker on the machine: less time tied to his job, more time to himself. Can the worker earn a good living in three days instead of five? He can with this modern equipment capable of huge output — if he is paid for his output and skill with machines instead of payment for time put in at work. If the new technology enables him to make a good living in three days, why should he have to spend five days in a noisy, monotonous job? Britain is a country of great inventors and outdated industries. In the 19th century new ideas were first applied at home and Britain led the world. In the modern age Whittle invented the jet engine, Baird the TV set, Cockcroft the hovercraft. They led the way but Britain lagged behind. There has been too much resting on old laurels; finance found bigger profits investing abroad; the rising industrial nations seized on new ideas faster. Britain was overtaken and surpassed; Britain pays the price today. Now the choice is to modernise or go under. Modernise Government First We need a government of action with an effective machinery of government, not only to see that the required finance is available, but also to set up the means of putting new inventions into British industry fast. Many years ago Sir Oswald Mosley said Britain needed a machinery of government to carry proved inventions through from the blueprint stage to the point of production. Britain needs it still more today. True, all industrial workers are not factory workers. But in every job new ideas come thick and fast today. Even in the office no-one pushes pens today; recording machines, computing machines, accounting machines, filing machines save time, cut out drudgery and raise output. There are many side benefits to the three-day week as well. Factories and offices could be built smaller and better. The pressures of the rush hour would be less. Congestion on roads and railways would be reduced. Public transport would have to cope with far fewer working passengers. Shopping habits would change with more leisure time. Organised sport would inevitably change too. Mid-week football fixtures could become as important as the Saturday match. This must increase the rewards of professionals. Yet the very fact of more general leisure must also mean more participation in sport as well as simply watching sport. The pace and tensions of modern city life have brought big social problems: more health hazards, mental breakdowns, juvenile delinquency, increased divorce and crimes of violence. Many of the disputes in industry can be traced to men and women being tied to the production line all the week. A three-day week would change matters there. When the industrial worker has good wages, more leisure and security in his job — with 300 million customers in a self-contained European system — he will then have more freedom to reach his full potential as an individual. With half the week away from the job he can develop his talents as a sportsman, a craftsman, an artist — or simply go fishing if he wants. He can recreate the fullness of family life. Man is more than factory fodder who goes home at night to collapse in front of the little box, seeking escape from the boredom and frustration of all-week repetitive work. Or he can be — if he now demands an end to an outdated system, and turns to a new one where technology becomes his ally and is no longer an enemy. Michael Quill
|
|
|
BRITISH
INDUSTRY must be re-equipped to match the capacity of other nations. A
Japanese steel-worker produces SIX times as much as a British steel-worker.
A British car-worker is outproduced FOUR times. Not because the Japanese
works six times as hard as the Briton but because he has better equipment.
The British worker will also be highly productive once he has better equipment.
The answer is modern industries with the latest machines. Raise the pay
of British workers as they produce more from their machines. It is the
job of government to take the lead in this reorganisation.
When
Japanese workers can outproduce British by four to six times, this shows
what modern equipment can do. With similar methods, three days' work can
produce at least as much as in five days with outdated equipment. Even
during the three-day week of the 1974 Heath blackout, Britain produced
nearly as much as in five normal days. And that was done, with outdated
equipment. A three-day week with modern equipment would produce far more.