THE TRADE-UNION CONGRESS. T HE Trade-Union Congress has converted itself from
an amorphous gathering in which gushing Socialists who represented nothing but the quagmire of their own platitudes—" sewing-machine canvassers, publicans, and blackleg journalists," Mr. Burns called them, somewhat unkindly—jostled and outvoted. the true working men, into a really representative body. Henceforward the Trade-Union Congress will be a true reflection of the Unions, and its voice will be the voice of the majority, not of accident and rhetoric. The history of the way in which this revolution was achieved is well worth con- sidering in detail, so characteristic is it of the good sense and shrewdness which in the long-run always characterise the more intelligent section of the English working men. For a long time the Trade-Unions in our blundering, illogical English way have been content to be represented by a Congress in which the rule of " One vote, one value " had little or no application. It is indeed hardly too much to say that the system under which it was chosen was as much a negation of the true principles of representation as that under which Parliament was elected before the great Reform Bill. It might have been supposed that a Trade-Union Congress would have been composed of delegates sent in proportion to their numbers by the various Trade-Unions. Not a bit of it. Not only did the great Trade-Unions fail to secure anything like their fair proportion of voting power ; but those eccentric bodies, the Trade Councils, also sent members, and so threw the system of election entirely out of gear. It was as if not only had the divisions of Lancashire sent Members to the House of Commons, but also the Lancashire County Council. In fact, almost any one in the Labour world could go to the Congress, and when he got there, and though he really represented nobody and nothing but himself, could exer- cise almost, if indeed not quite, as much power as a delegate from the Boilermakers' Union. One might have imagined that such a system would have broken down years ago. Englishmen, however, are for the most part of Burke's opinion, and feel that they "must bear with inconveniences till they fester into crimes." They bore with the Trade-Union Congress till it festered into the Norwich resolution, which pledged, or appeared to pledge, the working men of England to nationalising everything, from railways to ginger-beer, and iron mines to soft- soap. When that was done, they began to ask them- selves whether it was not possible that something might he wrong with the constitution of the Congress. They knew that the majority of the working men of Great Britain did not want Socialism, and yet they were apparently calling loudly for Socialism in their private Parliament. Clearly, then, there was something wrong with the machinery, and, like practical men, they deter- mined to alter it. But working men, when they once begin, are fond of making what they call a good job. Accordingly, the Committee to whom the task of remodelling the Congress was committed, set to work to clear that body of all extraneous and eccentric elements. In the first place, they made no one eligible for election who was not either working at his trade or -.else a Trade-Union official. Next, they deprived the Trade Councils of the right of sending delegates, and .strictly confined that right to the true Trade-Unions. Lastly, they arranged that the voting power of each delegate should be proportionate to the numbers in the Union he represented. In this way the Trade-Union 'Congress has been converted into a body which truly represents the great labour organisations of the Kingdom and speaks with their authentic voice. The standing orders carrying out these great changes were voted on on Tuesday last at Cardiff, and carried by delegates repre- senting 604,000 members against delegates representing only 357,000. No doubt it is alleged that it was unfair -not-to let the people who would have been eligible under the old rules, vote, and so to adopt the new standing .orders in practice before they were legally accepted, but this objection is hardly material in face of the figures just 'given. If, and when, the members of the Trade-Unions are nearly two to one in favour of the new orders, we may feel certain that all attempts to go back to the old arrangements would be unsuccessful.
It would be difficult to over estimate the public gain that will be produced by the change. We shall now have an easy and reliable source of information in regard to the views of the Trade-Unions. The resolutions of the -old Congresses taught us little. It was never clear whether they would not have been altered or vetoed under a more rational system of voting. Now, for good or ill, we shall 'be able to understand exactly what the majority of the members of the Trade-Unions want from Parliament and the Government. That is an immense advantage, for in our political system there is always a danger that things will be done to please the working men, which in reality do not please them a bit. Our politicians, eager to do some- thing in the interests of Labour, are very apt to mistake the whisper of a fraction for the voice of the labourers as a whole. Now we shall at any rate be able to feel fairly certain as to the views of the majority of the largest section of the skilled artisans. That is not, of course, everything, but we shall not be quite so much at sea .as we were before. The fact that the Trade-Union Congress will in future speak with the authentic voice of the Trade-Unions, will no doubt enormously increase its power and influence and raise its position in the country. Its deliberations will become of infinitely greater weight and moment than they were before. Up till now, when a Mr. Brown or Mr. Smith has risen and enunciated a new view on this or that industrial problem, one has always had a doubtful and uneasy feeling as to the amount of weight to be attached to his words. It has always been possible that he was one of Mr. Burns's sewing-machine canvassers or blackleg journalists, rather than a boa.-fide 'working-man. Now we shall know that he is a real ' Trade-Unionist, who is either at work at his trade or else a working official. His mere presence at the Congress will be a guarantee of his right to speak.
It is interesting to note that the sittings of the first Congress under the new and common-sense standing orders were remarkable for their practical and genuine character. We do not, of course, agree with every- thing said by Mr. John Jenkins, the chairman, but 'there was an air of honesty and reality about his .address which was very refreshing. Nothing, indeed, could have been better than Mr. Jenkins's allusions to the need of concentration. The resolutions of recent Con- gresses had charged the Parliamentary Committee with an amount of legislative work beyond hope of being dealt with in any one Session of Parliament. "Experience taught that the Legislature could not, under present methods of procedure—and in some matters would not— consider all the claims made through the Congress upon its attention. By diffusing the efforts of the Parliamentary Committee over too many measures, its powers and oppor- tunities of promoting any one measure were lessened." Congress should select each year those proposals proved to be "practical, beneficial, and ripe for legislation, and all the efforts of the committee and of the Unions should be concentrated upon attempts to force them to the front in Parliament." A wise policy, he went on, would be to con- fine their labours to attaining practicable and possible results. Mr. Jenkins ended by hoping that " neither the latitude nor liberty permitted would be used for academic discussions upon untried theories, or for the introduction of subjects and debates foreign to the scope of the Con- gress." This has an excellent ring in it, and promises far more actual good to the cause of labour than the windy sophistries of the Norwich resolution.
Previous page
