THE EXPENDITURE OF TRADE UNIONS.
For our part, we can write honestly as friends of Trade Unions. It seems to us obvious that as the manual workers can make their case prevail against that of the employer only by collective bargaining, Trade Unions are essential for organizing them into a compact body and for providing them with representation through their elected officials. But that is not the only function of Trade Unions. They serve also as Benefit Societies, in which connexion they have done extremely useful work. And we do not hesitate to say that they have deserved the respect of the nation in providing trades which were previously disorganized with a corporate sense. There is no doubt that the development of Trade Unions was coincident with a marked improve- ment in the character of skilled work, in the self-respect of the worker, in the amelioration of conditions and in the advance orwages.
That, at least, is what may fairly be said to have hap- pened so long as Trade Unions kept to their original and proper function. But a great change has come over the scene. What is called the " New Unionism " dates back roughly to the year 1912, when many of the principal unions began to act on the conviction that the pursuit of politics was much more important than the presentation of industrial demands as such. The union leaders very likely told themselves that they were still aiming at exactly the same thing. They argued that their industrial demands would never be achieved without political pressure and that, therefore, the adoption of politics as their principal concern was the merest adaptation to changed circum- stances. Nevertheless, the expenditure upon the political work of unions has risen so enormously that the time has come for the rank and file of the membership to decide whether they think' that from their point of view this new form of expenditure has been worth while. What we see now is great unions brimming' over with members—they have never had anything like so many members as they have now—while unemployment has reached an unex- ampled point and the unions have hardly any funds left to distribute. The unemployed are encouraged to blame the Government and the Boards of Guardians, but is it not desirable that they, should also ask what has happened to the large financial resources of their unions ? Would the money have been better spent in benefits to those in want than for political ends none of which have been reached ?
Of course, it will be said that the examination which the Morning Post has made of the balance-sheets is irrele- vant. It will be said, with particular reference to the events of recent years, that had it not been for political agitation the unions would not have exacted one rise after another from the Government during the War. The secret of success was the political power behind the demands of the men. Ultimately, as we fully admit, this is an issue for the members of Trade Unions themselves to decide. So long as unions act within the law, and do not behave unconstitutionally, they have a perfect right to spend money' on political movements. The only question, as we have said; ia-whether the memiiers think this expenditure worth while. The Morning Post, however, has raised the question whether the money spent on politics has, as a matter of fact, been spent legally- In- the Act of 1913, it was provided that when Trade Unions. used money for political purposes, they must draw entirely upon funds voluntarily contributed for that express purpose. The Morning Post analysis shows that much more money has been spent on politics than could conceivably have come out of the voluntary funds.. It asks, for- example, how the National Union of Railwaymen can reconcile the two statements that only 246,337 members contributed to the political fund of that union, and that nearly 10f per cent.. of the whole of the general fund (to which all the 4b7,836 members contribute) is appropriated, to- the political fund. Apparently 211,499 members must have exercised their right to " contract out " of the political fund, and yet 10 per cent. of their contributions to the general fund is made over to the political fund. The increase of what are called " management expenses " was tremendous in the years 1918 to 1920. It is, to say . the least of it, a very remarkable coincidence that this increase occurred simultaneously' with such extreme political movements as the organization of attempted national strikes and Direct Action. The .Morning Post suggests that what is really expenditure upon politics has in many cases been placed under the head. of " manage- ment expenses." In the years 1918-20 these expenses rose by over 100 per cent. It may be that vague and over- lapping accounts cannot very well be avoided, because if the unions definitely take up politics as the most important part of their work, it is inevitable that there should be a succession of congresses which must cost. a great deal of money. These congresses may be called " industrial," while really they are chiefly political if not wholly political. Who is to distinguish between such.nice shadeaof meaning ? It is very significant that the expenditure of Trade Unions which are known to be predominantly political in method• is much greater than that of less political or nen-political Trade Unions. Compare, for instance, the expenditure of the moderate miners of Durham with the extremely politically minded miners of South. Wales :- Total Members.. Revenue.. Expenses.
Durham Miners.. 118,693 186,78'1 .. 24,958 South Wales Miners .. 151,805 .. 207,880 .. 94,884 The plasterers, the painters, and the shrewd men of the North who belong to the textile unions have kept their management expenses comparatively low. The National Union of Railwaymen tops the list with. £255,000 spent on " management " as compared with the sum of £97,000 paid out in benefits. Nor do these " management ' expenses include the cost of administering the insurance funds, of. which the Trade Unions as approved societies have charge.
What does come under management expenses, and what comes under the still more baffling, heading of " Other Expenses of Management " 3 We see that under this last heading the National Union- of. Railwaymen spent £83,302. According to the calculation, of the Morning Post the proportion of management expenses, to the whole income of the various Trades Unions varies from one-third to nearly two-thirds. Contrast with. this. the expenditure of an ordinary philanthropic society, which expends from 5 to 10 per cent. When much more is spent, doubts are generally expressed about the. quality of the management. Even the police may be called in. We must not, however, make comparisons which might be thought unfair, for if it be conceded that a Trade Union scores by being political, a comparison between its expenditure and that of a philan- thropic society is beside the mark. The necessity remains, nevertheless, for Trade Unions to act with strict legality so far as the Act of 1913 can possibly be enforced.. Surely an outrage is committed against those men who do not believe in political action—particularly when it is of a revolutionary kind—but who find that their money is spent on politics whether they like it or not, and find, further, that when they are out of work there is no money left to pay them a grant 1 The Morning. Post has made out a strong case for a careful and earnest review of Trade Union practice by trade unionists themselves. No such examination as that by the Morning Post has been pub- lished before. Of course, we hope that trade unionists will decide that the " New Unionism " is a blunder and at curse, as we firmly believe it to be ; but all we want to say positively now is that trade unionists will do well to take the Morning Post articles in good part, and set their financial house in order if they are convinced that funds have been wasted instead of being applied to sound and profitable uses.
Previous page
