Back to Bevin Index
Back to Workless Index
Previous
Chapter I
Why Wait Ten Years?
These are definite proposals to deal with 2,000,000 of the unemployed
Mr NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, Chancellor of the Exchequer, recently arrested the attention of the whole of the country by his statement on the problem of unemployment.
In his speech Mr. Chamberlain made two important admissions:—
(i) That we have reached a stage when the country must face the prospect of carrying at least 3,000,000 of its population unemployed; and
(2) That, if the present basis of organising the labour supply continues, it is unlikely that there will be any serious inroads into this figure during the next ten years.
Begin Now !
In his explanation to Parliament, Mr. Chamberlain made a further admission, which is both vital and significant, that notwithstanding all that Parliament might do to restore the trade of the country, technological development is so great that, from the point of view of the absorption of the working population, the chances of doing anything really effective are remote.
In view of these admissions I am venturing to submit the following proposals for the consideration of the country.
I do not claim that these proposals will solve unemployment, but they are workable, they can be made effective at once, and, given the will, they should make a tremendous contribution towards easing the problem.
My proposals may be attacked on the ground that they will have the effect of stabilising Capitalism, and opponents of Labour may say that the proposals mean putting the nation on the “dole.” But, as a Trade Union leader, I have a duty to perform for the members I represent, and every day of my life I have to face the horrible fact of machinery taking the place of human labour.
Thousands of the people displaced by machinery are the best workmen and craftsmen on the old processes, and because their technique and skill are not required by the new processes they have no chance to-day of being absorbed into industry when trade increases as the result of improved methods of production.
An Unemployment Insurance Act limiting the liability of the State to 13 or 26 weeks, as proposed by the Commission, is only footling with the problem.
I approach the problem on the basis that unemployment must be accepted as a national liability, and my first suggestion is that there should be taken a complete survey of the working population for whom industry or the State must find employment or some kind of maintenance.
Then it should be ascertained to what extent, having regard to the changes in our economic life, there should be a contraction of that working population and the working hours.
If this survey were taken of the insurable population it would be discovered, taking a ten years' view and having regard to the inevitable changes that must take place, that it would be extremely difficult to find employment for all the available people, even with limiting the employable period of life to the years between 18 and 6o.
The Workers Suffer
In the schemes for the reorganisation of industry the workers must be considered. Take, for example, the proposal for one delivery per day in the milk trade, or the proposals for the reorganisation of the steel industry. If these are adopted they will displace a large number of men. I do not complain of the less toil; I welcome it; but I do complain of a system under which, when industries are reorganised, one section of the community is made prosperous whilst another section is left to starve.
If we are to have the economic State, let us begin in the right way.
The social services offer a first line of approach, provided that the problem with which we have to deal is placed on a national basis. We can then strike a correct balance sheet, setting off the economies my proposals will effect against the cost that will be incurred.
In subsequent pages I shall expand the following points and give concrete suggestions for immediate constructive legislation. Technological developments in industry demand a higher standard of intelligence and equipment, but at the same time they increase unemployment and render unemployable a large number of workers who are skilled in the old processes, but who are too old to adapt themselves to the new. The problem should be grappled with as a whole, and unemployment accepted as a national liability.
The aged and infirm should be transferred to a Pension fund and provided with an adequate pension. Persons of 60 years of age should be given the option of retiring from industry, in order to make way for younger people who are unemployed.
The school-leaving age should be raised to 16 years, and the educational system should be adapted to utilise the period between 14 and 16 for the purpose of training the young people to meet the requirements of technological development and to produce a higher standard of citizenship. During this period they should not be allowed to enter the labour market.
The working week should be shortened to absorb employable labour, and to prevent over-production, market gluts, and the breaking of the price level. Employment should be organised to meet the requirements of industry, and wages should be distributed on a more equitable basis. This proposal would lead to the creation of new industries to cater for the added leisure.