PiUos from 'Briefing! Mr. Calleghan said: ttih, (scys the Chancellor), ‘but, you know, we have got to relate wages to productivity, end of course wo a have been outrunning productivity.' How does he arply this to the public services? How does he cpply it to the firemen? Have the firemen got to put out more fires before they can get an increase in pay? Have the nurses got to henl more pntients? Have the teachers got to teach bigger classes? Whet folly it is to relate this to productivity! ‘We cll know,those of us who are working in these fields, thet the public services and the seni-public services have never been in the vanguerd of wage increases; they have always leggec behind the cerevan in the rearguard. To tell public servents end thos whose conditions are gove erned by vage Councils, that it is they who are creating this nonsense, is to put the cart before the horse. Neco soeeeeeeedO LT ask Conference to say to the Government thet we shall resist this wrecking attempt which is pulling cown c wage system of con= ciliation and negotiation merely to cover up the blunders of the (.......-) Party's economic policy. There is no sclution to be found in the Government's policy in this perticular direction. They will have to return to this system if they want public employees cnd employees in fields which sre related to public service to feel that they are being justhy dealt with. "It is this system of Whitley Councils which the Government proposes to cestroy. They have paid much lip service to it in the past; they have alwoys said, and we have alwcys argued, that if this system is to succeed, wage cgreements must be sccrosanct when they cre recched and arbitration awords must be inviolable. If this system is to succeed ond if it is to depend upon wage agreeients being inviolcble and crbitretion cwords being sacrosenet, then this Government is guilty of bresking down this system end wrecking something which has worked well for 40 years. In Srnie Bevin's dry et the Ministry of Labour, of course, if there was one thing he insisted upo end one thing which trede union lerders have had to insist upon with our members for many yeors, it is this, that we too should regard wage ogreements os invioleble, we, too should regurd them as sccroscnet; we have had to keep our share of the borgain -s well. But now, of course, we have not got Sevin ct the linistry of Labour: thst rock uoon which our industric relations were founced, of inviol-bility, of the secrosenct n ture of these agreements has been swept cawny Te escocecel promise this, thet in Parlicment, as legicsistion is neeced to deol with this action, we sholl resist it with cll the power we command. But it is no use relying upon a mino ority esroup of Lebour Members Of Prrliament to defend this situntion; the only sefety for these workers, whether they be incustrial workers in Governnent estrblishnents, whether their conaitions are determined by WNege Councils, whetner they be white collar workers, is in the return of a Labour Government at the earliest possible moment. Let that message go out!"
~
(Sxtreets from James Collaghen's svseech for the N.%.C. moving resolution opposing the pey peuse at Lebourts 1961 Conference : 2.10.61. L.P.C. Blackpool. Report ps 94-97)