Tho latost of a sorios of blatant govornmontal intorvontion into tho field of industrial rolations has offoctivoly cut away tho ground from bonoath tho ofteropoated argumont that trade unions should not concorn thomselves with political mattors, and that industrial goals should not to pursued by political moans. This time, tho Govern ment has launched a 35,000 word document,at the National Incomes Commy ission, in the hopo that in some way it can block any furthor cuts in working hours.
This Treasury document is clearly intended as an encouragement, oven as a warning, to the omployors to hold fast, withholding any substantial offers, On Friday, the Confodoration of Shipbuilding and @ngincering Unions meet tho Employers! Federation to prosent their long standing claim for a 40-hour wook, Sinco the forty—hour woek has been an official TUC demand since 1944, and an aim of some of the constituent unions for a longer period, neither the Sngineering Umployers nor the Government should be surprised that such a claim is now being pressed. The strange thing is not that it is being pressed, but that it was not conceded a very long time ago.
The arguments of the Government are no more serious than they wore when they were advanced to frustrate tho claims of the Duilders and Painters in the NIC Report of last April. lDut the Treasury statement is quite open about the real reasons why the Government is worried:
"If it (tho engineers' claim) is conceded...the normal chain
reaction through the industries which follow the engineering settle
ments must be expected..eIn any case, the general... repercussions
of a 40-hour wook settloment in ongineering are likely to be even
stronger than those of a wage settlement." Further, the statement bluntly continues:
"Dearing in mind the important 2groements to reduce hours already
madéeeeand the solidarity of the trade unions on this question,
the possibility of its general introduction, once it has been
accopted by engineering, needs no elaboration."
That the officials of the Treasury, the Government, and the advisors who have contributed to this stand, should object to a 40-hour week is not surprising. The oxporioences of the ruling minority are quite differ— ent from those of the working majority — it is doubtful whether anyone of the former has evor really worked 20 hours in 2 week let alone 40.
Labour should reply with two answerss
The first will need to be a solid preparation by the unions to carry into operation the words of Mr. George Darratt, the secretary of the Confod.: "If the employers turn us down now it will engender a real fight."
But the second should be given by Harold Tilson for Labour as a whole. The Party should pledge itsolf to ratify the ILO convention on the 40-hour week, as soon*as it assumes office. This will establish a legal 40-hour week, and will sharply diffentiate Labour from the Tory Government. If the Tories can use a Government department to try to stop the 40-hour week, why shouldn't Labour reverse the processe