TOPICS OF THE DAY
THE RAILWAY CRISIS.
IN industrial struggles, as in war, those disputes are the most dangerous which come unexpectedly and hurry one party into an irretrievable and disastrous act before it has had time to think. In the present railway crisis, though we do not wish to underestimate the difficulty or the gravity of it, there is reasonable hope of a settle- ment creditable to both sides because no serious step can be taken without much forethought. Some time must pass before the decision of the men. can become known, and even when it is known it may have to be regarded loosely as applying to a modified situation. An informal conference, for example, between the men and the companies might by that time have given tokens of a sweet reasonableness which it would be criminal in either side to stifle summarily. Meanwhile the Press is dis- cussing the matter exhaustively, and with an evident desire to be impartial, to get to the bottom of the difficulty, and to secure peace. One thing is quite certain, and it cannot be realised too fully. r'Tha public would never forgive either party which wantonly, or for the sake of some problematical advantage, imposed upon the country the suffering of a general railway strike. Suffering it would certainly mean, and perhaps gigantic suffering. The necessaries of life—milk, vegetables, meat — would be withheld, and even if the companies partially replaced the strikers, the sense which travellers have now of being safe in the hands of efficient and watchful drivers and signalmen would be inevitably impaired. Neither party could stand up against the wrath of a public whose welfare had been unnecessarily sacrificed. A very good proof of this was given in the railway strike in Victoria in 1903, when the community turned upon the strikers. Public opinion forced the Government to hold a special Session to make striking in the State service without notice punish- able by heavy sentences ; and the women, as we have heard from an eyewitness, swarmed at railway stations to applaud and encourage the " blacklegs " who were saving them and their children from famine. The community when it is irritated is the sternest as well as the strongest of employers. If this is really understood, there should be no serious danger that the country will have to put up with the most disastrous of all kinds of strike.
The issue between the men and the railway companies is very simple in form, though a great many arguable questions lie behind it. The members of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, led by their secretary, Mr. Richard Bell, M.P., demand that the Society be " recog- nised " by the companies,—in other words, that when there is a dispute the companies shall negotiate with the officials of the Society, recognising them as the men's authorised agents. The companies—with the exception of the North-Eastern Railway, which has already recognised the Society—refuse to do this, saying, truly enough, that the Society does not strictly represent the men, as the majority of railway servants do not belong to it. This demand for " recognition " so far outweighs in import- ance all the other demands that the latter may be disregarded on the principle that the greater contains the less. Let us try to summarise what is to be said on the men's side, and then what is to be urged on behalf of the companies. In the present circumstances, it is said, when railway servants have a grievance, they must send a deputation which is not allowed to discuss matters with the employers ; it can only state a case and wait for an answer, which is communicated later. The members of such deputations are necessarily untrained negotiators, and the men's cause suffers from their nervousness or want of education. Moreover, those who state grievances become marked men, and it is only just to railway servants that they should be represented by officials to whom being " marked " is a matter of indifference, even if such a thing were possible. The Society is a responsible body, and there would be less chance of its being disloyal to its under- takings than there is in the case of irresponsible individuals, especially as the latter never give or receive any written engagement when a reform is introduced. And now for the other side. It is said that the companies never refuse to consider their men's grievances, and that the direct communication between the two parties without the inter- vention of a third lends to all their dealings an intimacy and a sympathy which it would not be to the men's interests to end. The men do not in any sense need outside help, as they are very skilful and eloquent in stating their grievances. The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, so far from representing all the men, does not even contain a majority of them, and its relations with another railwaymen's Trade-Union—the Associated Society.
of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—are frequently those of rivals. And then, if the companies recognised Mr. Bell's Society, they would really be helping it into a prosperity which it has failed to acquire on its own merits. If it were once " recognised," all railway servants would be virtually compelled to belong to it. Why should the companies cut off their own heads ? The outstanding fact in all these arguments is the discrepancy between the number of men employed by the companies and the number who have thought it worth while to join the Union. This. is the chief weakness in Mr. Bell's argument. It is open to the companies to say : " We shall not refuse to recognise a Union when all our men are Unionists; but that has not happened yet. The question does not arise. You ask us to recognise a minority as representative, and that we will not do." The answer to this is that the Unionists are the intelligent pioneers, and that the non-Unionists mostly sympathise with their action, although, owing to the policy of the employers, it has never been worth their while to join the Union. Further than that, the numbers of the Unionists are increasing fast, and it is in accordance with all experience that Unionism will eventually triumph over non-Unionism, organisation over non-organisation. As to the arguments of the companies about the pleasant relations between themselves and their employes, there may be more in them than appears ; but judging them as they have been stated in public so far, we are bound to say that there is not very much. If the skill and eloquence of the employes in presenting their grievances are so great, it is not clear why the companies should object to the grievances being stated less skilfully and eloquently by a third party. The principle of collective bargaining is admitted almost universally, and the recognition of representation by the men's chosen officials—how can any large organisation be carried on without officials ?—is the logical sequel. If the men confess that they have been considerately treated ou the whole by the companies—as we believe they have been—it is still very natural for them to say : " We prefer to be guaranteed a right to conduct our business with you in the ordinary business way. We appreciate your sympathy, but a new Pharaoh may come to rule over the land, and then what security shall we have ? "
We have tried to state the arguments on both sides as fairly as we can. That the membership of the Amalga- mated Society of Railway Servants is not by any means coextensive with the number of men employed by the railways is undeniably awkward for the men. But we assume that sooner or later Trade-Unionism will permeate the railway industry as it has permeated most other industries. Will the companies then resist it ? We sincerely hope not, because we believe that Trade-Unionism has had a very good effect on the con- ditions and quality of labour, and has probably prevented more strikes than it has caused. The point, then, seems to be that the railway Trade-Unionists are asking for recognition a little before they are strong enough to exact it. Perhaps they ought to have proved their right to their claim by producing first a much larger roll of membership. But as the claim has been sent in—and it was bound to come later in any case—we cannot think that the com- panies will be wise in rejecting it on the spot. Although they could not probably be forced to grant it, it will be expedient for them at least to discuss it, or grant an instalment of recognition. It cannot be impossible to arrange some " wayside meeting," as Lord Rosebery said when Britain was wondering exactly in what way she should offer terms to the almost conquered Boers. We do not believe that the companies would suffer by recognising the Union, and we fancy that the sympathy of the country, which unmistakably made up its mind on the same question in a more urgent form in the Penrhyn dispute, is with the men. One warning ought to be uttered. Mr. Bell would forfeit that sympathy at once if he tried to repair his one weakness by increasing the numbers of his Union by force. If the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants is "recognised," and men join it because they "cannot argue agin a success," as Artemus Ward used to say, and because they see that those who remain outside are lost, that would be a legitimate victory for the principle of Trade-Unionism. But if the Unionists try to beat up non-Unionists with threats and violence, they will injure what is now a fairly good case, and will deserve to lose the day. Judging from Mr. Bell's public statements, which have been thoughtful and not pugnacious, there does not appear to be any danger of this. Indeed, the stake of the Unionists in the railway companies is considerable. The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants has over £50,000 invested in railways ; the members are not, then, mere " agitators " with nothing to lose and a great deal to gain. The conclusion we have come to is that if the companies do not recognise the Amal- gamated Society of Railway Servants immediately, they should not, at all events, adopt an attitude of non possumus. They must be able to show that they have tried to avert the calamity of a strike ; and of course, mutatis mutandis, as much is expected of Mr. Bell and his followers. The public expects of them that they shall come to terms.
Previous page
