Back to Bevin Index
Back to Workless Index
Previous
CHAPTER IV
The School-Leaving Age and Working Hours
Raise the School-Leaving Age and Reduce Working Hours ; an appeal to the Churches and to Teachers
[Doesn't look too bad to me! - PB]
In my view it is imperative that the school-leaving age should be raised to 16 years. I would much rather do this than lower the insurable age to 14 years. There are in Great Britain over 1,000,000 juveniles between the ages of 14 and 16 years, and if this number were taken off the labour market an important contribution towards the solution of the juvenile problem would be made.
In the first place, a very large proportion of the children leaving school at 14 years of age are not finding employment and are simply running the streets.
This naturally leads to all kinds of demoralisation and places a great burden of anxiety on the parents. In fact, I go further and say that it is tending to develop criminality and is adding to our problems of lunacy.
Regarding those who do find employment, I am satisfied that if correct statistics were available it would be discovered that a very large number of young people who obtain employment at 14 are again unemployed at 16 when higher wages are demanded.
The tragedy is that this kind of thing is very largely happening in the so-called new industries, the profits of which are enormous, and out of which reasonable wages at 16 and over could be paid if only the will were there.
An Appeal to Religious Bodies
We hoped to achieve the 15 years school-leaving age as a beginning during the regime of the Labour Government, and thus get ready for the increase to 16 years now, but, unfortunately, religious difficulties came in the way.
As a Trade Union official, and knowing the grave economic consequences involved, I would appeal to the religious bodies to come together and reach agreement on this problem.
Surely they must see that no amount of dogma and no amount of preaching can undo the mischief and terrible moral harm done to children as the result of running the streets after leaving school.
But, under the heading of School-Leaving Age, there will be an attempt to frighten the people on the question of cost; but, basing the cost on the available Government statistics, and allowing for the maintenance grant proposed by the Labour Government, it would cost the State approximately twenty-five million pounds per annum. This need not be a frightening figure. First of all, it represents the outside cost, but there is room for considerable economies in administration, adaptation of schools, etc.
Also, against it we must set off the cost of Poor Law relief now being paid in respect of children between the ages of 14 and 16 who are unemployed, the cost of young people now being paid Poor Law relief or Unemployment Pay who are over 16 years of age, who would be absorbed into industry as a result of raising the school-leaving age, and the further gain that would accrue to the nation by the removal of these categories from the field of exploitation.
Again, no one can estimate the terrible cost to the State of the curative work necessary in after years, due solely to the unhappy start of thousands of our young people.
The high standard of health and efficiency that will be gained as the result of increasing the school-leaving age to 16 years will be worth more to the State than the cost involved. It is true that the expenditure will be heavier on the educational side, but if this is set against the colossal cost to the nation of the physical and moral deterioration of the young if things are left as they are, it will prove to be a good investment. It will give the young people a better chance and make a splendid contribution towards raising the standard of life.
If the school-leaving age were raised, the religious bodies would have a much better opportunity of efficiently grappling with the moral problems than they have at the moment.
Although I am not a theologian, I have studied the tenets of the Founder of Christianity, and, frankly, I cannot square these with the opposition to the beneficent legislation of raising the school-leaving age with all the economic and moral consequences to the children.
I notice Churches making “charitable ” appeals at the present time on behalf of the unemployed. If they would only join in preventing the exploitation of young children and compel the State to provide for a later school-leaving age they would be making a far greater contribution than by “charitable ” appeals. This particular problem has been settled in Scotland-—why not in England and Wales?
Reduce Working Hours
I now come to the hours of labour.
The Government are at present studying the question in the light of the discussion at the Geneva Conference on the 40-hour week proposal.
I am quite satisfied that while a 40-hour week will represent a very big contribution it is not, in itself, a solution to the problem of unemployment. A 40-hour week is inevitable as a result of the development of mechanism, to which I have already referred.
It has been indicated by the spokesmen of the Government that it is essential to deal with the working hours internationally because of the question of cost.
What I cannot understand is, that when you propose to deal with a problem internationally the British Government nearly always puts up a strong opposition, and then when you attempt to deal with the problem nationally you are told it is impracticable because it must be dealt with internationally.
Really, these are merely excuses. Another suggestion is that the hours of labour should be dealt with by agreements between the employers and the Trade Unions. It may be good that there should be joint discussions as to how to accomplish a reduction of hours, but beyond this I have no confidence in reaching a prompt agreement with British employers.
There are 3,000,000 workers unemployed, but yet it is a fact, which cannot be denied, that at a meeting of the Federation of Employers, only two employers were willing to discuss the problem in all its economic aspects. It was just dismissed.
With a type of mind like that it is almost impossible to reach agreement. The coal situation in Britain clearly indicates the attitude of the British employers, and I am quite sure, discuss the problem as you may, that in the end the State will have to deal with it.
No Magic Figure
In suggesting 40 as the number of hours that should constitute the working week, I should like to point out that this is not a magic figure. It may have to be less. I suggest 40 as a guide, and on no account should it be used as a means of increasing overtime.
Experience has taught us that excessive overtime increases the difficulties of making adjustments ; the workers are inclined to pay greater attention to overtime than even to the wage standards.
The shorter working week should constitute a real attempt to organise the work of the population. It is true that something will have to be done to cater for the increased leisure, but I have no doubt that the bodies dealing with adult education, sport and cultural development, will deal with that problem, and that new developments to meet the increased leisure will spring out with great rapidity in all directions.
I insist, therefore, that the shorter working week must be used for the reduction of unemployment. There are thousands of shift workers at the present time working 56 hours a week, whilst in transport and distribution thousands are working up to 60,70 and even 80 hours a week. This power of the employers to do what they like in the matter of working hours and throwing the whole responsibility on the community must be curbed. There is a strong case for compulsory order in industrial organisation and distribution.
Take the motor industry, for instance. Here the workmen are simply hung on a string, so to speak; they are brought in for a day or so and then thrown out again.
If these employers had to shoulder the responsibility of providing for these men they would organise the production of motor cars on an entirely different system, and it could be done on the basis of a 40-hour working week. At the moment many industries estimate their hours requirements and carry on a yearly production, but the so-called prosperous motor industry has created a system of casual labour, both here and in America, which is disastrous.
It is not sufficient merely to limit the hours; we must at the same time devise means to compel competitive employers to place their methods of production on an orderly basis.