CHAPTER XII.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF PROTECTIVE ORGANISATION.

In spite of all that can be urged against them, however, we may gather

much, not merely negative, but also positive, knowledge from the

proposals of Social Democracy. An organisation which shall be equipped

with full authority, which shall be independent, complete in all its

parts, which shall prevail uniformly and equally over the whole nation;

an organisation which shall avoid the disintegration of collective aids

to labour, which shall encourage industrial representation and prevent

the division of authority amongst many different courts: such is the

root idea of the proposal, and this idea is just, however unacceptable

may appear to us the form in which it is clothed in the Auer Motion.

Nothing is omitted in the Auer Motion except the assignment of their

various duties to the various branches of the territorial representative

bodies, and the working out of an elementary local organisation. I shall

therefore try to work out the idea into a legitimate and possible form

of development. In order to do this I must distinguish between the

organisation required for executive and for representative bodies.

As regards the executive organs, neither in Germany nor elsewhere is

the industrial inspectorate at present furnished with a sufficient

number of paid head-inspectors and sub-inspectors. Scarcely any of the

sub-inspectors are drawn from the labouring class except in the case of

England. Industrial inspection in Germany has not yet attained uniform

extension over the whole Empire. The inspectors of the different

provinces, and the chief provincial inspectors of the whole Empire

require to be brought into regular communication with each other and

with a Central Bureau adapted for all forms of aid to labour, including

Labour Protection--an organ which of course must not interfere with the

imperial, constitutional, and administrative independence of the States

of the _Bund_. If the individual inspectors were everywhere carefully

chosen, the assembling of all inspectors for deliberation with the

Provincial and Imperial Central Bureaux of Labour Protection would in

nowise retard, but on the contrary would serve to promote the complete

and equitable administration of Labour Protection and all forms of aid

to labour. This is the really fruitful germ contained in the idea of an

"Imperial Labour Board."

A Provincial Labour Board might effect much in the same direction. We

are not without the beginnings of a uniform constitution of this kind:

England has an Inspector-General, Austria a Central Inspector; in

Switzerland the inspectors hold regular conferences; in France a

comprehensive scheme of inspectoral combination is projected.

The choice of persons as head and sub-inspectors, which is a matter of

such great importance, might be subject to nomination by the united

provincial inspectorate, coupled with instructions to direct particular

attention to the selection of persons of practical experience, without

social bias, well versed in knowledge of technical and hygienic matters,

and suited to the special needs of the several posts.

But the mere development of the inspectorate would not be the only step

in the progress of the organisation of Labour Protection. We must go

much further than this. The combined interests of economy, simplicity,

efficiency, and permanence of service, point to the necessity of

relieving as far as possible the regular governmental courts of the

Empire, of the province, and of the municipality, of the extra burden of

judicial and police administration involved in special branches of

Labour Protection, and in all other special forms of aid to labour. The

same considerations involve the necessity of gradually developing a

better organisation of associated labour boards, an imperial board, and

provincial, district, and municipal boards. We should thus get rid of

the present confusion of divided authority without entirely depriving

Labour Protection, both individual and general, of the assistance of the

ordinary administrative courts. This is the task that I have repeatedly

insisted upon as imperatively requiring to be taken in hand in connexion

with Labour Insurance. The Auer Motion attempts to meet this necessity.

Much also that is very just and very practical is contained in the idea

of extending the sphere of operations of the Imperial Labour Board and

of the District Boards so as to embrace not only Labour Protection but

every form of aid to labour. Complaint is made that the organisation of

Labour Insurance, in spite of all caution, has frequently proved a

unpractical and costly piece of patchwork administration. Would it not

then be more to the point, and would it not more easily fulfil the

object of Labour Insurance and Labour Protection, and later on also of

dwelling reform, inspection of work, etc., to create municipal district

and provincial boards, with a great Imperial Central Bureau at the head?

In order that each special branch of protection might receive proper

attention, care would have to be taken in appointing to the offices of

the collective organ, to insure the inclusion of the technical,

juristic, police, hygienic, and statistic elements, and it would be

necessary to group these elements into sections without destroying the

unity of the service. There would be no lack of material, and it would

not be difficult to secure a good, efficient, and economical working

staff.

No less reasonable is the idea of a "guild" of the eldest in the trade,

or of a factory committee for the several large works with

representation of both classes to appoint the district, provincial, and

imperial labour councils. So far from being extreme in this respect, the

Auer Motion is rather to be reproached with incompleteness, and a lack

of provision for local Labour Councils and Labour Chambers, a point

which we have already mentioned. But the representative bodies would

have a significance extending far beyond the limits of Labour

Protection--following the example of Switzerland the _von Berlepsch_

Bill admits factory labour-committees for dealing with matters

concerning the factory working rules--they would be agencies for the

care of labour, for the insurance of social peace, the protection of

morality, the settlement of disputes and the maintenance of order in the

factory, for the instruction and discipline of apprentices, for the

control of the administration of protective legislation, for dealing

with the wage question, in a word for softening the severe autocracy of

the employers and their managers by the co-operation and advice of the

workers. And in this case I have nothing further to add to what I have

already said on the matter in a former article.

But the supporter of even the most comprehensive scheme of labour

representation does not stand committed to any such system of

parliamentary management of industry by democratic majority as is

proposed in the Auer Motion. The appointment and the working of the

Labour Councils and Labour Chambers seems to me to introduce quite

another element into the scheme.

The regular, not merely the accidental and occasional, meeting of the

inspectors with the body of employers and workers is a recognised

practical necessity; a less bureaucratic system of industrial management

is demanded on all sides. Regularly appointed ordinary and special

meetings with the Labour Chambers would no doubt accomplish much. The

inspector ought to be accessible to the expression of all wishes,

advice, and complaints; but, on the other hand, he should not yield

blind obedience to the rulings and representations of such organs. The

industrial inspector must be, and must remain, an officer of the State,

capable of acting independently of either class, appointed by

government; only under these circumstances can he perform the duties of

his office with firmness and impartial justice; in his appointment, in

his salary, and in the exercise of his official duties he should be

furnished with every guarantee to insure the independence of his

judgment. It is nowise incompatible with this that he should be open to

receive representations, whether in the way of advice, information, or

complaint. The more he lays himself open to such in the natural course

of work, the more important will his duties and position become, both on

his circuits and in his office. The right of appeal to higher courts can

always be secured to the Labour Chambers in cases of complaint. But how

should representative bodies of this kind be formed?

In answering this question care must be taken above all not to confound

such public Labour Chambers as are suggested in the Auer proposals with

voluntary joint committees of both classes. Each of these representative

organs requires its own special constitution.

The voluntary unions appoint committees for the security of class

interests, and especially for the purpose of making agreements as to

conditions of work. The election of these representative bodies ought to

be made by both classes with unrestricted equal eligibility of all,

including the female, members of any union, and without predominance of

one class over the other, or of any section of one class.

I have already in a former article (see also above, Chap. V.) laid

great stress upon the development of this voluntary or conciliatory

representation of both classes as a means of union which can never be

replaced by the other or legal form of representation.

The need for a representative system in the organs of the different

forms of state-aid to labour is quite another matter.

Their tasks require special, public, legalised representation, with

essentially only the right of deliberation; but they may also decide by

a majority of votes questions which lie within the sphere of their

competence.

As regards this public representation, it seems to me that joint

appointment by direct choice of all the individuals in both classes, and

out of either class, tends to the preservation of class enmity rather

than to the mutual conciliation of the two classes and to the promotion

of their wholesome joint influence on the boards. This kind of

appointment might be dispensed with by limiting direct election as far

as possible to the appointment of the elementary organs of

representation; but for the rest by drawing the already existing

authorities of a corporate kind into the formation of the system of

general representation. Herein I refer to such already existing organs

as those of labour insurance, Chambers of Commerce and Industrial

guilds, railway boards, local and parliamentary representatives; and

other elementary forms of corporate action might also be pressed into

the service. A thoroughly serviceable, fully accredited _personnel_

would thus be secured for all Labour Boards.

This system might even be applied to the election or appointment by lot

of the Industrial Court of Arbitration. If the Labour Chambers were

corporate bodies really representative of the trade, then the Industrial

Courts of Arbitration, both provincial and local, might be constituted

as thoroughly trustworthy public organs--without great expense, free

from judicial interference, competent as courts of the first and second

instance, and not in any way dependent on the communal

authorities--either freely elected by the managers of the workmen's

clubs and the employers' boards or companies, or chosen by lot from the

_personnel_ of the already existing corporate institutions above

referred to. The system of direct election by the votes of all the

individual workers and employers would thus be avoided, and, more

important still, this method would meet the difficulty which proved the

crux of the whole question when the organisation of Industrial Courts of

Arbitration was discussed in the last Reichstag: the distinction between

young persons and adults would not enter into consideration, either in

the case of Labour Chambers or of the Courts of Arbitration proceeding

therefrom.

There would be no need, under this system, that electors of either class

should be required to limit their choice of representatives to members

of their own class. Each body of electors would be free to fix their

choice on the men who possessed their confidence, wherever such might be

found. This would further help to stamp out the antagonisms which are

excited by the separate corporate representation of both classes. Men

would be appointed who would need no special protection against

dismissal. But the representatives of the workers when chosen out of the

midst of the working electorate might still receive daily pay and

defrayment of travelling expenses. If this were entered to the account

of the unions which direct the election through members of the managing

committee, and if charged _pro rata_ of the electors appointed, a

sufficient safeguard would be provided against the temptation to

protract the sessions or to bribe professional electors.

The foregoing sketch of the executive and representative development of

the organisation of Labour Protection in the direction of united,

simple, uniform, specialized organisation of the whole aggregate of aids

to labour, ought at least to deserve some attention.

Provided that the upward progress of our civilisation continues

generally, this quite modern, hitherto unheard of, development of boards

and representative bodies, even if only brought about piecemeal, will

eventually be brought to completion, and will effect appreciable results

in the State and in society. Some of the best forms of special boards,

_i.e._ special representative bodies are already making their

appearance, _e.g._ the "Labour Secretariats" in Switzerland, the

American "Boards of Labour," and the Russian "Factory Courts" under the

governments of St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Vladimir (Act of June 23,

1868).

The Theory and Policy of Labour Protection · 第 7 / 9 章