Labour policy—false and true : $b A study in economic history and industrial economicsMacassey, Lynden Livingston
History
Labour policy—false and true : $b A study in economic history and industrial economics
Macassey, Lynden Livingston
Industrial policy -- Great Britain; Labor economics -- Great Britain; Labour Party (Great Britain)
One outstanding advantage which would result from each industry effecting
its own unemployment insurance would be the feeling it must undoubtedly
engender in the minds of both employers and Trade Unions of their
responsibility for the combined working of the industry, and the effect
it is bound to have in producing a better spirit between the two parties
and amongst the men, who will no longer feel that they are taken on and
discharged merely as it suits the interests of the firm. A thorough
investigation should be made as to what industries could undertake their
own unemployment insurance, and whether it is better that they should do
so, or come into a general scheme of insurance by all industries. The
ordinary objection of employers and Trade Unions representing “good”
industries, i.e. those with a low rate of unemployment, is that they
are paying for the “bad” industries with a high rate, but is not that
rather the essence of insurance? It may well be that only insurance by
all industries acting collectively is possible. If such turns out to be
the case, that plan should be adopted ready for carrying into practical
operation on the approach of more normal times. Industries which rely
mainly on casual labour are a more difficult proposition. Decasualization
is essential, and that must be effected by some means of restricting the
free influx of labour into the industry, as has been done in the Dock
Labour Scheme in Liverpool. The efficiency of the Liverpool method is
undoubtedly due to the co-operation between the dock labour employers and
the Unions; it has been most strikingly successful. It affords a basis
for procedure in very many industries. There must, however, I am afraid,
remain a residuum of unemployment insurance to be handled by the State,
in the absence of any other authority, on the lines presumably of the
present National Unemployment Insurance Scheme, but it would be reduced
to small proportions if all the great industries of the country were
providing for their own unemployment.
Reform of Present Out-Door Relief System
In connection with unemployment, the present system of Poor Law relief
wants overhauling. The provision of relief by the Guardians (in addition
to, or substitution for, unemployment insurance benefit) on varying
standards in different places throughout the country is extremely
wasteful and disturbing to social harmony. If this is taken out of the
hands of the Guardians, as has already been recommended by both the
majority and minority reports of the Poor-Law Commission, and committed
into the hands of some local authority—because local responsibility is
essential for the spending of money raised by local rates—it would mark
progress of no uncertain kind. Absolute standardization is impossible,
because of the varying social circumstances and indeed social outlook
in different parts of the country, but, after allowing for this, much
greater approximation to uniformity could be secured.
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