from an industrial correspondent
The National Federation of Building Trados Gmployers, in its annual report issued on January 30th, urgod that the use of direct labour by public authorities and other bodies for construction work should be discouraged 'in the national interest.! It sayse "Tho output figures for building work carried on by direct labour are not so good. Nearly 400,000 men, approx. $ of the industry's total labour force, are now directly omployed by local authoritiés and other public bodies and private organisations, and the number is still rising..." Claiming that the use of direct labour was an uneconomic mothod of employing the building industry's work force, the reports goos ons “ian=power boing one of the limiting factors in the expansion of the industry, it would seem to be desirable in the national interest that the use of direct labour be discouraged." To back its arguments, the Fedoration produces figures of output per man in tho first 6 months of last year, comparing those of contractors with those of direct labour.
These figures show for contractors an output per man as new housing (£1,155), other new work (£1,258), repair and maintenance (£813) and all work (1,100), The respective figures for direct labour are £768, £896, £584 and £626, As impressive as these figures would seem to be, one wonders why, if direat labour is so inefficiont,its uso is increasing? Furthormore, one can always 'smell a rat' when a section of tho employers start talking about the 'national intoresté! Just now with a rapid oxpansion in construction the private employers are ongaged in competition with local authorities, etc.,for labour and contracts ; hence these kinds of arguments. The report is also intor~ sting when it spoaks of growth of productivity per person employed. It says the lattor has outstripped practically every othor major indus— try, and that in tho third quarter of 1963, gross output per man was 24% higher than in 1958.