58. Arbitration. We have now considered at some length the evils arising from the present separation of interests between the employed and their employers. The next thing is to discuss the various attempts which have been made to remedy these evils, and to bring labour and capital into harmony with each other. In the first place, many people think that when any dispute takes place, arbitrators or judges should be appointed to hear all that can be said on both sides of the question, and then decide what the rate of wages is to be for some time to come.

No doubt a good deal may be said in favour of such a course, but it is nevertheless inconsistent with the principles of free labour and free trade. If the judges are to be real arbitrators, they must have power to compel obedience to their decision, so that they will destroy the liberty of the workman to work or not as he likes, and of the capitalist to deal freely with his own capital, and sell goods at whatever price suits the state of the market. If wages are to be arbitrarily settled in this way, there is no reason why the same thing should not be done with the prices of corn, iron, cotton, and other goods. But legislators have long since discovered the absurdity of attempting to fix prices by law. These prices depend entirely upon supply and demand, and no one is really able to decide with certainty what will be the conditions of supply and demand a month or two hence. Government might almost as wisely legislate about the weather we are to have next summer as about the state of trade, which much depends upon the weather, or upon wars and accidents of various kinds, which no one can foresee. It is impossible, then, to fix prices and wages beforehand by any kind of law or compulsory decision. The matter is one of bargain, of buying and selling, and the employer must be at liberty to buy the labour required at the lowest price at which he can get it, and the labourers to sell their labour at the highest price they can get, both subject of course to the legal notice of a week or fortnight.

59. Conciliation. Though the compulsory fixing of wages is evidently objectionable, much good may be done by conciliators, who are men chosen to conduct a friendly discussion of the matters in dispute. The business is arranged in various ways; sometimes three or more delegates of the workmen meet an equal number of delegates from the masters, who place before the meeting such information as they think proper to give, and then endeavour to come to terms. In other cases the delegates lay their respective views before a man of sound and impartial judgment, who then endeavours to suggest terms to which both sides can accede. If the two parties previously engage that they will accept the decision of this conciliator or umpire, the arrangement differs little from arbitration, except that there is no legal power to compel compliance with the decision. Discredit has been thrown upon this form of conciliation by the fact that the workmen have in several instances refused to abide by the award of the umpire when given against them, and of course it cannot be expected that masters will accept adverse decisions as binding under such circumstances. Thus I am led to think that the conciliator should not attempt to be a judge; he should be merely an impartial friend of both sides, trying to remove misapprehension and hostile feelings, enlightening each party as to the views and reasons and demands of the other—acting, in short, as a go-between, and smoothing down the business as oil eases the movement of a machine. The final settlement must take the form of a voluntary bargain directly between the employers and employed, which will only have compulsory effect during the week or fortnight for which workmen usually enter into a legal agreement. Conciliation may in this way do much good, but it cannot remove the causes of difference—it cannot make the men feel that their interest is one with the interest of their employers.

60. Co-operation. Among the measures proposed for improving the position of workmen, the best is co-operation, if we understand by this name the uniting together of capital and labour. The name co-operation is used indeed with various meanings, and some of the arrangements called by it have really nothing to do with what we are now considering. To co-operate means to work together (Latin, con, together, and operor, to work). About thirty-five years ago some workmen of Rochdale, noticing the great profits made by shopkeepers in retail trade, resolved to work together by buying their own supplies wholesale, and distributing them amongst the members of the society which they established. They called this a co-operative society, and a great number of so-called co-operative stores have since been established. Most of these are nothing but shops belonging to a society of purchasers, who agree to buy at the store and divide the profits. They have on the whole done a great deal of good by leading many men to save money and to take an interest in the management of affairs. The stores are also useful, because they compete with shopkeepers, and induce them to lower their prices and to treat their customers better. We frequently hear now of shops selling goods at co-operative prices.

But such co-operative societies have little or nothing to do with the subject of capital and labour. Commonly these stores are conducted less upon the true co-operative principle than ordinary shops. A shop is usually managed by the owner or by a man who has a large interest in its success, and has the best reasons for taking trouble. Co-operative stores, on the contrary, are often managed by men who are paid by salary or wages only, and have nothing to do with the profits and the capital of the concern.

Real co-operation consists in making all those who work share in the profits. At present a workman sells his labour for the best price he can get, and has nothing further to do with the results. If he does his work well, his master gets the benefit, and if he works badly his master is injured. It is true that he must not be very lazy or negligent for fear of being discharged; but if he takes care to be moderately careful and active, it is all that he need do for his own interests. No doubt it would be a good thing to reward the more active workmen with higher wages, and a wise employer endeavours to do this when he can, and to put the best workmen into the best places. But the trades-unions usually prevent it as far as they can, by insisting that men doing the same kind of work in the same place shall be paid alike. Moreover, as we have seen, many men are under the mistaken belief that if they work hard they decrease the demand for employment, and tend to take away the bread from their fellow-men. Thus it is not uncommon for workmen to study how not to do the work too quickly, instead of striving to make the most goods in the least time with the least trouble. Workmen do not see that what they produce forms in the long run their wages, so that if all workmen could be incited to activity and carefulness, wages would rise in all trades.

61. Industrial Partnerships. The best way of reconciling labour and capital would be to give every workman a share in the profits of his factory when trade is so prosperous as to allow of it. Charles Babbage proposed, in the year 1832, that a part of the wages of every person employed should depend on the profits of the employers. In recent years this has been tried in several large works, especially in Messrs. Briggs' collieries, and in Messrs. Fox, Head & Co.'s iron-works. The arrangement generally made with the men was that the capitalists should first take enough of the profits to pay 10 per cent. interest on the capital, together with fair salaries for the managers as wages of superintendence, a sum to meet bad debts, the repairs and depreciation of the machinery, and all other ordinary causes of loss. Such profit as remained was then divided into two equal parts, one of which went to the employers, while the other was divided among the workpeople in proportion to the amounts of wages which they had received during the year. Many workmen under such a scheme found themselves at Christmas in possession of five or ten pounds, in addition to the ordinary wages of the trade received weekly during the year.

This kind of co-operation has been called industrial partnership, and, if it could be widely carried into effect, there would arise many advantages. The workmen, feeling that their Christmas bonuses depended upon the success of the works, would not favour idleness, and would have some inducement for preventing needless waste whether of time or materials. By degrees they would learn that the best trades-union is a union with their employers. Strikes and lockouts would be for the most part a thing of the past, because, if wages were too low, the balance-sheet would prove the fact at the end of the year, and half the surplus would go to the workmen. To be free from the danger of strikes would be a very great advantage to the employers, and any portion of profits which they might seem to give up would be more than repaid by the increased care and activity of the workmen. The employers would continue to manage the business entirely according to their own judgment, and they need not make their affairs or accounts known to the men. All that is requisite is that skilful accountants should examine the books at the end of the year, and certify the amount of profits due to the men. If this plan were thoroughly carried out, the men would feel that they were really working for themselves as much as for their masters, and the troubles which at present exist would be nearly unknown.

There are great difficulties in the way of this kind of co-operation: most capitalists do not like it, because they needlessly fear to make known their profits to their men, and they do not understand the advantages which would arise from a better state of things. The workmen also do not like the arrangement, because the trades-unions oppose co-operation, fearing that it will overthrow their own power. Where the scheme has been tried, it has usually succeeded well, until the men, urged by their trades-unions, refused to go on with it. Thus are people, through prejudice and want of knowledge, made blind to the best interests of themselves and the country.

It is to be feared, then, that industrial partnerships will not make much progress just at present, so great is the dislike to them felt both by trades-unions and by prejudiced employers. Nevertheless, the arrangement is in accordance with the principles of political economy, and it will probably be widely adopted by some future generation. Already, indeed, many banks, mercantile firms, and public companies practically recognise the value of the principle, by giving bonuses or presents to their clerks at the end of a profitable year. A French railway company adopted this practice forty years ago, and as business falls more and more into the hands of companies whose profits are matters of general knowledge, there seems to be no reason whatever why the principle of industrial partnership should not be adopted. Somewhat the same principle is said to be carried into effect in the very extensive and successful newspaper business of Messrs. W. H. Smith & Son.

62. Joint-Stock Co-operation. Another mode of co-operation consists in working men saving up their wages until they have got small capitals, so that they can unite together and own the factories, machines, and materials with which they work. They then become their own capitalists and employers, and secure all the profit to themselves. Co-operative societies of this kind are simply Joint-Stock Companies, the shares of which are held by the men employed. Of course the shareholders must choose directors from among themselves, and they must also have managers to arrange the business. The managers and directors ought to be well paid for what they do, and have a considerable share of the profits, in order to make them interested in the success of the works, and therefore active and careful. Incompetent or negligent management will soon ruin the best business.

A great number of co-operative companies of this kind have been formed in the last twenty years in England, France, America, and elsewhere; but most of them have failed from want of good direction. The working-men shareholders do not generally understand what a great deal of skill and judgment is required in the conduct of a business; they are accustomed to see work going on as if it went of its own accord, but they do not see the constant anxiety and the careful calculation which is requisite to make the work profitable. Hence they usually fail to secure good managers, and they do not sufficiently trust those whom they appoint. Moreover, many of the so-called co-operative companies are not really co-operative; they frequently employ men who are neither shareholders nor receivers of a share of profits, and they pay their managers by a small fixed salary. Such co-operative societies are badly-managed joint-stock companies, and cannot be expected to succeed well.

Another difficulty with such companies is, that they rarely have enough capital, and, when bad trade comes, they are unable to bear the losses which will sometimes occur for several years in succession. They can borrow money by the mortgage of the buildings and machinery belonging to the company, and this is usually done; but no banker will give credit to such companies without the security of fixed property. Thus they frequently fail when bad trade comes, and those who buy up their property cheaply reap advantage. It is to be hoped that at a future time all working-men will become capitalists on a small scale, and when education and experience have been acquired, co-operative factories of working-men may succeed. At present it would be better to leave the management of business in the hands of capitalists, who are not only experienced and clever men, but have the best reason to be careful and active, because their fortunes depend upon success.

63. Providence. It is most deeply to be regretted that the working-people of England will not, for the most part, see the necessity of saving a portion of their wages in order to have something to live upon when trade is bad, or when ill-health and misfortune come upon them. Too many working-men's families spend all that is earned while trade is brisk, and when employment fails they are as badly off as ever. There are several distinct reasons why every man or woman should save up some property when possible:—

No man and no woman, who is in the prime of life and earning fair wages, should spend the whole. Even an unmarried person will generally reach a time of life when, through ill health, old age, or other unavoidable causes, it is no longer possible to get a living. By that time enough ought to have been saved to avoid the need of charity or the degradation of the poor-house. When there is a wife and young family, the need of saving is evidently greater still. Every great storm, colliery explosion, or other great accident leaves a number of helpless children to be brought up by a struggling widow, or to go on the parish. No doubt people may meet with disasters so unexpected and so great that they cannot be blamed for not providing against them. A man who is blinded, or crippled, or otherwise disabled in early life, is a proper object of charity, but there would be plenty of benevolent institutions to provide for such exceptional cases, if those who are more fortunate would provide properly for themselves.

It is often said that working men really cannot save out of the small wages they receive; the expenses of living are too great. We cannot deny that there are labourers, especially agricultural labourers in the South of England, whose wages will not do more than barely provide necessary food and clothing for their families. The weekly earnings of a family in some parts are not more than 12 or 15 shillings on the average of the year, and sometimes even less. Such people can hardly be expected to save. But this is not the case with the artisans and labourers in the manufacturing districts. They seldom earn less than a pound a week, and often two pounds. The boys and girls, and sometimes the mother of the family, also earn wages, so that when trade is brisk a family in Manchester or Leicester, or other manufacturing town, will get altogether £150 a year, or more. Some kinds of workmen, especially coal-hewers, and iron-puddlers, earn twice that amount in good years, and are in fact better paid than schoolmasters, ministers of religion, and upper clerks. It is idle to say that the better-paid working men cannot save, and though we cannot make any strict rule, it is probable that all who earn more than a pound (five dollars, or 25 francs) a week, might save something.

It is easy to prove this assertion by the fact that when a strike occurs, men voluntarily live on a half, or a third of their ordinary wages. Sometimes they will live for three or four months on 12 or 15 shillings a week, which is paid for their support by their trades-union, or by other unions, which subscribe money to assist them. It is quite common for workmen to pay levies, that is, almost compulsory subscriptions of a shilling or more a week, to be spent by other workmen who are playing, as it is called, during a long strike. Nobody wishes working people to live on the half of their wages, but if, for the purpose of carrying on struggles against their employers, they can spare these levies, it is evident that they could spare them for the purpose of saving. Then, again, we know that the money spent on drink is enormous in amount; in this country it is about £140,000,000 a year, or about four pounds a year for every man, woman, and child. To say the least, half of this might be saved, with the greatest advantage to the health and morals of the savers, and thus the working classes would be able to lay by an annual sum not much less than the revenue of the nation.