4. The miners proposed that any surplus remaining after meeting standard wages, other costs and minimum profits, should be divided between miners and owners in the proportion of too to 10. The owners proposed that that proportion should be 80 to 20.
5. The miners proposed that their share of this surplus should be distributed by means of national uniform flat rate additions to their standard wages. The owners proposed that the miners' share of the surplus as ascertained in each district should be distributed as a percentage addition to the standard district rates.
6. Whereas the miners' proposals meant that the whole mining industry in Great Britain should be treated as one unit within which wages would be varied uniformly, the owners proposed to take as the units of uniform variation, the 25 districts among which the collieries of Great Britain are distributed by the Second Schedule of the Mining Industry Act, 1920.
With regard to the question what modifications, if any, might be introduced to meet the abnormal conditions of the period fol- lowing immediately on control, the owners expressed their will- ingness to waive their share of the surplus in favour of the work- men, on condition that ascertainment of the proceeds of the industry in each unit should be made at monthly periods during the continuance of the concession; but they insisted that it was inevitable that wages should go down on decontrol. From the miners' point of view it was evident that the introduction of their scheme at that moment might mean the loss to the men of war wage and Sankey wage, and the miners' argument therefore was that the Government's obligation to pay war wage or Sankey award did not cease by the decision to decontrol the trade on March 31. The war wage had been given to meet the increased cost of living when the latter was only 80 per cent in excess of the pre-war figure, and (though the Government rejected this interpretation) under the terms of the award the miners claimed that the wage was liable to revision only when the cost of living fell again to that point. With regard to the Sankey wage, the argument of the miners was that the Government had accepted the Sankey Commission's recommendations for an advance in wages of 2S. per day, and if the Government now proposed that these conditions should be abandoned, it would be guilty of a breach of faith. The miners reiterated at all times from Feb. 23 to March 31 their demand that the Government should abandon its decision to decontrol the industry, or at least should continue to subsidize it during the existence of the depression from which it was suffering.
The general argument of the miners at this time was that the situation demanded a full national settlement of the wages and profits problem for the industry. The trade as a whole needed uniform peace and security, and district or local negotiations must result in strife. The workmen and their families had to live in the poor districts as well as in the rich, and for uniform expend- iture of energy there should be uniform reward. This had been recognized by the Government, first by the payment of uniform war wages to meet the increased cost of living, and, secondly, by the acceptance of the decision of the Sankey Commission to raise uniformly the wages of all coal miners to meet the agreed case for a uniform advance in their standard of living. A Na- tional Wages Board, exercising the right to distribute nationally both wages and profits, need not necessarily result in a uniform profit for all undertakings, but by means of a small levy upon the total tonnage raised in every mine, money would be made avail- able for maintaining poor collieries in production as long as their coal was in demand.
The view of the owners, on the other hand, was that the wide variations in the losses of different coalfields made anything in the nature of a national settlement of wages impossible. While there were such divergencies between district and district, each district must determine its own wages by its ability to pay, and he individual who could not pay the wages so determined must decide for himself whether to close his pits or to bear the loss.
he country could not afford to keep unprofitable pits working.
From the opening of the strike on April i, four whole months passed before an agreement between the owners and miners was cached. The first difficulty to secure a resumption of negotia- tions encountered was in the Government insisting that the first subject to be discussed should be the return of the safety men to
he mines, while the miners held that negotiations were useless
if their demands for a wages settlement along national lines, and a national profits' pool, were totally unacceptable. But the influence of the other members of the Triple Alliance secured a modification of both points of view, and joint negotiations were resumed on April n and 12. On April 12 the view of the Govern- ment was outlined that, while the miners' demand for a national settlement of wages might be practicable, their demand for a national pool of profits was impracticable. A pooling arrange- ment for the equalization of wages in the industry was declared not to be possible without the resumption of complete and per- manent control by the State of the mining industry. A national settlement of wages, however, was suggested, by which the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th points at issue between the owners and miners as outlined above should be determined by the joint conference, whilst subsequent differences of interpretation should be referred to a national joint committee of owners and miners. The prime minister explained the Government's proposals as regards the abnormal period following upon decontrol, as follows:
" If and when an arrangement had been arrived at between the coal owners and the miners as to the rate of wages to be paid in the industry, fixed upon an economic basis, the Government would be willing to give assistance, either by loan or otherwise, during a short period, in order to mitigate the rapid reduction in wages in the districts most severely affected."
These proposals were fully discussed, but the miners' officials intimated their inability to accept them or to abandon their for- mer position, and the conference thereupon ended. This failure at once brought to a head the question whether the other two members of the Triple Alliance, namely, the National Union of Railwaymen x and the National Transport Workers' Federation, would take sympathetic strike action in support of the miners. A general meeting of the National Union of Railwaymen, and a full conference of the executives of unions affiliated to the National Transport Workers' Federation, were summoned, and remained in session until April 16, when the question of sympathetic action was finally settled. The mediatory efforts of the railwaymen and transport workers on April 9, which secured the resumption of negotiations between owners and miners, had been supported by a decision that a sympathetic strike should take place on the night of April 1 2 unless negotiations between the miners, owners and Government were reopened before that date. This strike of April 12 was avoided by the resumption of negotiations on the nth, but on the i3th, the day after the failure of the resumed negotiations, the railwaymen and transport workers determined to strike at 10 P.M. on April 1 5 in support of the miners. This sympathetic strike of April 15 was avoided, however, at the last moment. In the late evening of the i4th a group of private members of the House of Commons, after hearing a statement by Mr. Evan Williams, president of the Mining Association, dealing with the effect on the miners' actual earnings of the owners' proposals, invited Mr. Frank Hodges, the secretary of the Miners' Federation, to make a similar statement on behalf of the miners. In the discussion which followed his speech, it was understood from Mr. Hodges that the miners would be prepared to discuss a temporary wages settlement, pro- vided that a period of time were fixed for the negotiation of a permanent settlement, to contain the principles of a national pool and a national wages board. The Prime Minister was at once communicated with, and on the following morning he invited owners and miners to meet him again for a further con- sideration of the wages question. The executive of the Miners' Federation, to general surprise, abruptly declined this invitation, and Mr. Hodges, whose " offer " was thus ignored, tendered his resignation (though it was afterwards withdrawn). The leaders of the railwaymen and transport workers, however, in these cir- cumstances decided not to proceed with the sympathetic strike, and a breach was created in the Triple Alliance.
The next stage in the history of the dispute was a second series of joint negotiations between owners and miners, from April 22
1 The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen before the close of this episode joined the other railwaymen and the transport workers in the discussions and the decisions on the quesr tion of sympathetic strike action.
