THE SPLIT IN THE TRADE-UNION CONGRESS.
WE have every sympathy with the central idea of the Trade-Unions. We believe, too, that in the past they have done good service to the cause of labour, and that after they have shaken off the fads and fancies that now possess many of their members, they will continue to help the labourer to obtain an adequate remuneration for his toil. Meantime, however, it is impossible not to be struck by the curious contrast which is presented by the abstract sentiments of the leaders, and the concrete acts which they recommend and get adopted. The New Unionism proclaims itself to be largely Socialistic in its views, and to be possessed by the spirit of altruism ; but very little of that spirit is to be seen in its work. Indeed, the most conspicuous thing about the practical schemes of those who advocate the new departure, is their tendency to adopt the temper of the hardest and most ungenerous individualism. If we want to find a good example of the devil-take-the-hindmost attitude, and of a steady insistance upon the notion that a particular body of men need think only of their own interest, and may ignore the effect that their action will have on others, we have only to study the proceedings of the Trade-Union Congress. There the New Unionism very often showed itself exactly the reverse of altruistic, and exhibited a strong inclination to trample upon anything and everything opposed to its For example, there was not the slightest hint dropped at the Congress that the capitalist and the employer had any rights which could possibly require to be respected. Altruism apparently is all very well in regard to the mem- bers of one's own class, but it does not extend beyond the magic circle of the Unions. Those who proposed arbitrary Parliamentary interference with the conditions of labour, did so without making any attempt at declaring that they were acting for the benefit of persons other than them- selves. It was to the interest of those represented at the Congress that such-and-such changes should take place, and in this old-fashioned, straightforward, masculine argu- ment, all the fine talk of " the divine dictates of altruism " was forgotten. Again, when the interests of one portion of the labourers came in conflict with those of another, the majority did not hesitate to think only of what they held to be their own advantage, and proposed without any mis- giving to crush out the minority, though it was a minority of no mean proportions. The operatives in the textile industries were known to object to any Parliamentary interference with the hours of labour, on the ground that such interference would produce the ruin of the Lancashire cotton trade, and deprive them of the means of livelihood. Yet, in spite of their knowledge of these views, the Con- gress passed a resolution pledging themselves to use their influence to obtain a universal eight-hours day. Had they specially excepted the industry of Lancashire, it might have been possible to reconcile their action with the altruistic' professions of the New Unionists. As it was, they in effect said to the cotton operatives : Your interests are opposed to ours on this matter, and they must therefore give way. The Lancashire workmen are in a difficult position, but that is no reason why the rest of the workers should sacrifice themselves.' That this way of looking at the question must necessarily and in every case be the wrong one, we by no means desire to say. All we want to point out is, that it is not the altruism which the Socialists profess. Granted that an eight-hours legal day would greatly benefit the majority of the working class, it might be perfectly necessary to disregard the misery inflicted on the cotton operatives, and to stamp out their opposition. Let us not forget, however, that the Socialist has no right to take this view ; or that, if he does, he cannot claim to be regarded as more humane than the Individualist. Yet another instance of the hardness of the New Unionism is to be found in the recent action of the dockers' organisa- tion. We have been accustomed to hear of the cruelty of the system of free competition, and of how it drives the weakest to the wall, and emphasises the " horrible doctrine," that " whosoever hath, to him shall be given, but whosoever hath not, from him shall be takeri away even that which he bath." Yet the first thing which the Dockers' Union has done after getting firmly into the saddle, has been to attempt to turn itself into a close corporation, into which admission can only be gained by a few specially favoured persons. In other words, those first inside have shut the gates against the rest of the world, and proclaim aloud that they will not share their employment with the miserable have-nots who are seeking for work. Those who desire to make a living by working at a trade monopolised by the New Unionists, must learn not to hunger for what is meat for their masters. If they want to avoid starvation, they must go to the workhouse or elsewhere. At any rate, they cannot be permitted to participate in the benefits which the Union means to keep for its own members. Surely this is not the temper of universal brotherhood of which we hear so much in connection with the latest Socialistic crazes. Instead, it has a distinct resemblance to the teachings of the extremest form of individualism.
Whether the split in the Congress which has taken place owing to the withdrawal of Mr. Birtwistle from the Parliamentary Committee, will actually break up the organisation, remains to be seen. We greatly trust it may not, for the annual gathering of the artisans has done much in the past to enlarge the views of the Trade-Unionists, and to bring their ideas on many points to the test of practical discussion. Unless, however, the proposed action of the Congress in regard to the Eight-Hours Bill is in some way modified, it is difficult to see how a catastrophe can be avoided. Mr. Birtwistle's action was not taken on his own responsibility, but was unanimously approved of by the rest of the delegates from the textile trades. They one and all agreed to take no part in the attempt to obtain a compulsory eight-hours day. But this being the case, it is hardly possible to see how conflict between the Old and the New Unionists can be prevented when the matter is discussed in Parliament. After a bitter struggle in the House of Commons, the possibility of a friendly gathering next year seems extremely remote. Our only hope is that at the last moment the New Unionists will be afraid to act on their mandate, and will prepare a Bill which resembles those that have been passed in certain American States. These begin by setting forth a universal eight-hours day, and end by a schedule of exceptions in which are to be found all the chief industries of the community. If this happens, the House of Commons, which hates abortive legislation,_ will soon laugh the measure out of existence, and there will then be no reason why the split in the Trade-Union Congress should not be healed. If it does not, and the Trade-Union Congress is broken up, the cause of labour will have re- ceived a blow from within which will result in incalculable injury.
Previous page
