Of course, Prospero's main objection to the new measure was not that it s=ttacked the unions: on the contrary, his chief concern was to make more effective onslaughts into union powers: ",eelt is quite conceivable - indeed, it would inevitably happen = thet an obviously inflationary wage claim would be referred to the Board for examimation. But bargaining on the claim could, and would, continue. The employer might be eager to reach a settlement. If he was not, the union might take some form of industrial action to force his hand. One way or another an agreement could be signed, with the Board still conscientiously immersed in the details of the original claim. It would be hard to imagine a moreeffective method of making the Board, and the policy, look ridiculous. And if. it is argued that the settlement would still be ~investigated and if necessary condemned, all one has to do is point to experience, The inescapable conclusion is that the ‘early warning' Bill would, if it became law, fail completely in its primary purpose of preventing inflationary pay agreements."
The WeekThe Week Vol. 5, No. 16, c. 21 April 1966
Directors'.Journal..on-Brown's Lunatic Bill-/continued 3.
The scan: The Week v5 no16.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)
Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Tesseract OCR) from a scan of a stencilled typescript and has not been corrected. Expect misread words; titles in particular are often garbled where the issue printed no contents list. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: large-type headline; heuristic; title from the OCR of the heading.
← Directors call early warning bill "lunatic"Painters! leader rejects 'early warning' →