The cardinal point in wages. (1911)

From the August 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Writing editorially in “The Gas World ” of July the 15th, a learned scribe asks how the cardinal point of wages in a certain locality and for a particular description of work, is determined.

Lord Robert Cecil, we are informed, delivered himself, at the last Co-partnership Conference, of some pearls of economic wisdom. The “ultimate” sanction of rates of wages payable, he said for instance, is the law of supply and demand, but the employers only know from time to time what wages they can afford to pay.

The clarity with which the scion of a noble house elaborated his case can only be compared with a good old-fashioned November fog. For he leaves the Editor of “The Gas World” rolling up the whites of his eyes and inquiring what determines wages.

“So far as we can see for the present,” says the editor, “the principle of co-partnership does not touch this dictum.”

May I ask the literary gentleman what laws determine the wages of the printers, compositors, and others whose labour produces that scintillating wonder of Bouverie Street, “The Gas World” ? If the supply of these workmen was not equal to the demand, they could secure higher wages. If the supply and demand were equal and there was no surplus either way, then supply and demand cancel each other. Now take conditions as they really are. There is, to-day, a greater supply of labour-power than there is demand for. According to Lord R. Cecil, wages fall steadily pro rata, as the balance of labour-power exceeds the demand.

It is clear, however, that this is absurd, that something else is necessary to determine wages.

Before touching this let us consider what is necessary to permit of the issuing of a single copy of “The Gas World.”

First we must have the raw material—paper, type, ink, etc. These, shovelled into a heap, would make a fearful mess, and though the resemblance to the editor’s economics might be striking, its resemblance to “The Gas World” would be undiscernible.

The thing essential to the assembling of the raw materials in such manner that they will lure the wily coppers out of the pockets of a wide and ever increasing clientele is human energy.

Now in reckoning out the selling price of the paper it has to be considered that if the price is too high a competitor will be let in. This fact will keep the price down, just as a superabundance of labour-power will keep wages down.

But suppose a competitor does appear—is that fact going to run the price of the journal down to zero ? No, you then begin to tot up the cost of production, and when you find that you are not making the necessary profit and have no chance of freezing out your rival, you think of the official receiver and cease publication. So supply and demand are not the only factors in the determination of price.

In the same manner wages, which are the price of labour-power, though fluctuating with supply and demand, find their “cardinal point” in something very different. That something is the necessary cost of subsistence—the cost, that is, of the production of the labour-power.

If the noble lord is left with only supply and demand to determine wages, then, with the application of science in industry continually displacing labour and making the supply increasingly in excess of the demand, a time would be reached when the workers’ wage would consist of air and daylight. This consummation of the dreams of the advocates of co-partnery is, however, too absurd for anybody but a lord.

"Southerner."

Co-partnership in gas works. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the annual meeting of the Labour Co-partnership Association, held at Westminster in March and reported in the columns of the “Gas World” (April 1st.), the president, Mr. Corbett Woodall, said there was evidence of “a revolt against the attempted classification of human flesh and blood with raw material, or fuel, as a contributory to the supposed need of capital in the way of profitable employment.” The “attempt,” we are told, was an error, even from an economic point of view, as riper experience had abundantly demonstrated. Meanwhile labour organised for its own deliverance.”

It may be noted in passing, that such elastic logic on the part of Mr. Woodall permits him to declare first, that the attempted classification is economically unsound, and then to show trade union and labour organisation as a desire on the part of the workers for deliverance. This tempts one to ask, what do they wish to be delivered from?—especially as the platform of the Co-partnership Association has resounded to the tread of such considerate friends of the workers as Alexander Henderson, Arthur J. Balfour, and others.

Since the workers’ very existence is determined by the economic basis of present society, it is fatuous for Mr. Woodall to say no one can possibly object to “defensive” action on the part of the wage-earner. If the workers’ premisses are unsound, then the defensive, action falls and constitutes the objection in itself.

Corbett Woodall mouths effusions as to a fair minimum wage. He might just as reasonably talk of an honest burglary. He says the workers must not be aggressive, because co-partnership spells salvation to them. They must not pin their official faith to Socialism.

The speaker knew, and had great respect for, many labour leaders, and it surprised him that “so many of them should profess themselves Socialists." Mr. Woodhall must realise that when labour men are Socialists they will not seek his society or respect, or pat him on the back on Co-partnership platforms. They will, instead, be educating the trustful and misguided “co-partners” in the science of revolt, and not in leading them to the shambles.

“What is wanted,” Mr. Woodall went on to declare, “is an appeal to the soul of man, who has never been satisfied with bread alone.” We require inducement to the improvement of man and of the fruits of his toil. The hope of mankind lies in his power of self-sacrifice.

But what self sacrifice has Mr. Woodall and his like, unblushing mouthers of “altruism” as they are, ever subjected themselves to? The various agreements drawn up for “co-partners” to sign certainly show nothing on the masters’ part of self-sacrifice, no tendency except to perpetuate the wages system. Their actions are as materialistic even as Mr. Woodall declares Socialism to be, and conceived on class lines narrower than that of the trade union policy he girds at—narrower if only because the capitalist class is smaller. They recognise to-day that it is cheaper to bribe the worker than to fight him, more so as the wages have gradually decreased since the introduction of profit-sharing by gas companies, not to mention the speeding-up, the introduction of wage saving machinery, and the miserable system of espionage, inseparable from the profit-sharing, as apparently, an appeal to the soul of man.

The present writer, at all events, cannot disagree with Mr. Woodall’s claim that the world is ripe for another step upward and onward in social progress. It its not only capitalism, however, that is “growing weary of wages settlements that do not settle anything, and of bargains that bear no more strain than wet paper.” But the way does not lie through co-partnership, and it is hopeless to think of agreements to obtain finality when a growing number of the working class absolutely deny the right of existence to a master class, and declare that nothing short of the overthrow of the existing social form can eradicate the hostility which exists between employers and employed.

A table was submitted showing that in all 28 companies with 19,613 co-partner employers have paid £726,126 in a period of 21 years. The highest percentage was paid by the South Metropolitan Gas Co.—8¼ per cent. This, on a wage of 25s. a week would be less than 2s. On the other hand, where wages were 35s., they are now 25s., so that to reduce wages 10s. at a cost of 2s. in the guise of divided profit, certainly warrants all the enthusiasm for co-partnership which the masters lavish upon it.

Further confirmation of this point was contained in the statement that the late Sir George Livesey “would relate how he once inquired of another large employer of labour, whether a workman with a real interest in saving time and materials and stopping waste, might not be worth an extra 5 per cent. on his wages. ‘Say 20 per cent.’ was the answer.”

Although this was a “co”-partnership meeting, only the “profit” payable to the workers was dealt with. The very fact that masters show such animated interest in forcing a share of their profits (?) upon those from whom, in other times and places, they just as enthusiastically wring that profit, is a sufficiently illuminating circumstance to put co-partnery in its proper place, among the many swindles the capitalists and their henchmen, the labour “leaders,” have together devised for the benefit of their credulous dupes.

"Southerner."