Labour and the Popular WelfareMallock, W. H. (William Hurrell)
General
Labour and the Popular Welfare
Mallock, W. H. (William Hurrell)
Labor; Labor movement; Socialism; Working class
◆¹ Now a situation like this is the ultimate situation which all Trade
Unionism tends to bring about. It tends, by turning the labourers into
a single body on the one hand, and the employers into a single body on
the other, to make the dispute like one between two individuals; and
though for many reasons this result can never be entirely realised,[59]
the limits of the power of Trade Unionism can be best seen by
imagining it. What, then, is the picture we have before us? We have
Labour and Ability in the character of two men confronting each other,
each determined to secure for himself the largest possible portion of
a certain aggregate amount of wealth which they produce together. Now
we will assume, though this is far from being the case, that neither
of them would shrink, for the sake of gaining their object, from
inflicting on the other the utmost injury possible; and we shall see
also, if we make our picture accurate, that Labour is physically the
bigger man of the two. It happens, however, that the very existence
of the wealth for the possession of which they are prepared to fight
is entirely dependent on their peacefully co-operating to produce it;
so that if in the struggle either disabled the other, he would be
destroying the prize which it is the object of his struggle to secure.
Thus the dispute between them, however hostile may be their temper,
must necessarily be of the nature not of a fight, but of a bargain;
and will be settled, like other bargains, by the process of compromise
which Adam Smith calls “the higgling of the market.” ◆² When such a
bargain is struck, there will be a limit on both sides: a maximum limit
to what Ability will consent to give, and a minimum limit to what
Labour will consent to receive. There will be a certain minimum which
Ability must concede in the long run; because if it did not give so
much, it would indirectly lose more: and conversely there is a certain
maximum more than which Labour will never permanently obtain; because
if it did so the stimulus to Ability would be weakened, and the total
product would in consequence be diminished, out of which alone the
increased share which Labour demands can come.
[Sidenote ◆1 Thus the possible power of Trade Unionism in raising
wages is far more limited than it seems.]
[Sidenote ◆2 If we judge hastily by the magnitude of modern Labour
combinations, and the extent to which they can terrorise
the community.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account