rtttrt tII t4r (ANL
THE BUILDING STRIKE.
Stn,—The question now at issue between the master builders and the workmen on strike seems to me so important that I venture to trouble you with this letter.
I will begin by recapitulating the acts, for it is of the utmost importance that they should be clearly understood The custom in the London building trade was to have a day of ten hours; working beyond that time was regarded as exceptional, and was remunerated at an extra price, " time and a half." An absolute inviolate custom it was not, but so general as to be fairly called the custom of the trade. In 1859, the men presented a petition for a reduction of the day to a nine-hour day without a corresponding reduction in wages, and resolved to strike for it; but before the time came, a dispute arose which led to the great lock-out of that year. Peace was restored by the masters withdrawing the document (the document of renunciation towards the union which they had in vain tried to force upon the men), and the men withdrawing their demand for the nine-hour day. But the demand was only postponed. In 1860 it was repeated; it was not granted, still the men did not strike. In March of the present year, they again presented memorials to the same effect—as before, a matter of request, nothing more. It is the manner in which these memorials were met that is the cause of the whole dispute. The Masters' Association, to whom they were addressed, took no notice of them, but Messrs. Lucas and Kelk posted a notice in their yards that from the 23rd wages should be paid by the hour. Against this their men struck; other firms have followed, their men struck also, until the masons, finding they were being taken in detail, adopted the bold step of striking against all, but, be it observed, not for the nine hours, but for a half- holiday on Saturday. Now, it is most fully proved that the great majority of the workmen in the trade are utterly opposed to the new method of hiring by the hour. And it is clear what other workmen think, when we find the Amalgamated Engineers, which represents perhaps the finest and most powerful body of artisans in the kingdom, joining in the deputation to Sir George Lewis to protest against Government lending sappers and miners to the destitute con- tractor whose barrack is standing still. Without going further, then, the prac- tical question is: Are these few powerful firms, in the face of this deeply felt, emphatically expressed opposition of the men, justified in insisting on the aboli- tion of the established custom of hiring by the day?
But let us now see what the effect of the proposed change will be. The masters, whose policy is silence, do not very readily confess the fact that the result of pAyment by the hour will be to prolong the hours of daily labour. lint it is clear that this is so. Masters, by the nature of the case, prefer a long day ; they prefer, therefore, those who will work a long day ; they will give this pre- ference; workmen wholly unrestricted, by law or custom, will be found to take it; and the fence once broken down, the workirw-day will tend to a maximum. Let any one who doubts this think of the Ten "fours Act; how it was necessary to prevent by law women and children from being employed beyond the ten hours. Or must I remind any one that excessive hours of labour are in many trades (slop tailoring, for example) a practice so confirmed, that the sturdiest incomer must conform to them ? No wonder, then, that the men resist the change and sooner than submit to it, are willing to endure the present misery and pr ation of a strike. They say, "Our working day is long enough already; ten ours' work, with an hour and a half for meals, and au hour and a half g and returning, takes us thirteen hours from our homes; that is long enon " The masters do not meet this directly indirectly they admit that the c ge will extend the hours of labour; for they have only to declare that with p yment by the hour, the day shall be as heretofore a ten-hour day with overtime regal*.
tion, and the strike would be closed to-morrow. If they are not aiming at the extension of labour hours, and so increase of production, what is the object for which they are sacrificing so much ? Their policy is as mach as possible silence. Their reasons for the change, the best I can gather, are these: 1st. They say that hiring by the hour was a plan of conciliation, intended to prevent further dispute as to the limit of the day, nine-hour movements, &c. To this the answer is: Your plan of conciliation has wholly failed to conciliate; it has called forth the most stubborn resistance. It never can conciliate, if the operation of it tends to prolong unduly the hours of labour. 2ndly. They say, or suggest, that payment by the hour provides the natural extra-remuneration for the extra- industrious. 3rdly. They say, or suggest, that payment by the hour will lead to increased production. (Here they let the cat out of the bag, and admit that the new system will, whether duly or unduly, extend the hours of labour.) These two latter reasons, however, require to be fairly met and considered; in the present condition of thought on economical subjects, I cannot doubt that they commend themselves to many, perhaps to most persons. In judging of them, and in judging between these two rival systems of a fixed day and an unlimited day, two principles, I submit, must be borne clearly in mind: L Increase of production is of altogether inferior importance, compared with the well-being of the producing class. A truism this, but the most important of truths. The workman knows it well enough ; he wears the shoe; he knows what his life is—his life, which he spends day after day in his trade, he knows whether it is a comfortable life or otherwise ; and to him increase of production is nothing, if the conditions of producing are a misery to him. On the other hand, the mere consumer thinks nothing of this: perhaps it can hardly be expected of him. The man who buys a shirt, knows that he wants a shirt, and that it costs, say 4s. 6d.; that is enough for him: he does not trouble himself to think that the cotton of which the shirt was made was slave-grown. So the lady who buys a pair of scissors, pays herbalf-crown and takes her scissors: the choking lungs of the scissor-grinder, and all Sheffield, are far out of sight and farther out of mind. But the employer of labour, who has the men working on his own premises, under his own hand and eye, and who profits by their labour, he should ever hold this truth before him. So should the statesman ; so should every thoughtful man, at least every one who dares to give an opinion on any industrial question. Yet how easy to forget it! We do practically forget it when we think of labour as a dead thing, as a mere marketable article, and lose sight of the fact that labour is part, a most consider- able part, of the life of a living man. Consider once what a living man, a living workman, means. It means that he has a body which can only work a reasonable time each day, which needs rest, recreation, and the support of re- gular habits, and, wanting these, has a tendency to seek improper stimulants (gm, for instance !); it means that he has a mind, which it were well he should improve, so that he, too, may take his share in the blessings of knowledge ; it may mean—in most cases it does mean—that he is a husband and a father, that behind all his work he has a family life to live. Are these things unimportant? Science does not say so ; if it did it would speak falsely. Once more they are most important, and the future of the working man depends on their being so treated. Now, I say that hiring by the day does, so far as it goes, admit of these claims. It recognizes the living workman, appointing a limited term of daily labour, and appointing a time to leave off work; it recognizes rest; it recognizes re- gular habits. But hiring by the hour does not recognize these claims. It treats hours of labour as a mere marketable article, to be bought and sold hour and hour alike, i though to the seller the twelfth hour is not as the first hour ; it leaves the term of labour unlimited, and practically tends to establish extreme hours for all work- men. Production it may increase, but I believe temporarily only. Temporary or otherwise, this production ought not to weigh for a moment against the tree welfare of the workmen.
2. The immediate advantage of individual workmen is not to be so much re- garded as the permanent welfare of the class.
Another truism ; another most important truth, and as much forgotten as the former. I understand well how hard it seems that a man wanting to work his twelve hours (say to support a large family), should be told, "No, you must only work ten.' But what if his working twelve hours leads inevitably to others working twelve hours—leads inevitably' to a systematic twelve-hoar day—to the exclusion of all who would work less? Why, this means the degradation, the.unhappiness of his order, the brotherhood to which he belongs. He must give way. He ought to give way. And a rule which compels him to give way is a right, and just, and beneficial rule. The truth is, it is altogether a false method to begin with the individual as such—to begin with (so-called) individual rights, instead of social duties. The absoluteness of such alleged rights, as for a man to work as long as he pleases, make his own bargain in all cases, do what lie likes with his own, &c., is comparatively anew claim in the world: it has done good in undoing un- reasonable social bonds, and may have more good work of the kind to do; 'but after the experience of the last fifty years, we ought to know that to reasonable social obligations any one of these "rights" ought to humble itself, and confess that it is no right at all. All patriotism, all social order and well-being depends on this; and one main good of a trades union is, that it does recognize the good of the whole order, and requires every member to consider that first, and his own profit second.
Much has been said about reducing to one level the skilful and the unskilful, the industrious and the indolent workman. No doubt this ought not to be ; but is it not sufficiently provided against by the various grades in the several trades— the power of choice on a reduction of bands, the power of promotion to foreman, &c.? Working distinctions must be broad; and in all employments in which payment by time as distinguished from payment by piece is the rule—an im- mense majority, I should think—such measures are found, and have been found time out of mind, practically sufficient. In all such employments has such a thing been heard of as a complaint by the men that they are paid equally? The objection does not come from the men; • it is started on the other side. Moreover, payment by the hour is payment by the hour to all alike; and the only difference between man and man that it can effect will be by one man working longer than another. Again we see the object of the change: extension of the hours of labour!
If my reasoning be right, the custom of a fixed day appears to be a good custom. Then the only question remains, Is ten hours a fair day? For, for a fair day's wage there must be a fair day's work. Does a ten-hour day consist with remunerative production, the existing state of the labouring classes, and the other conditions of the labour market? On this point experience seems to be conclusive. The ten-hour day has been long tried ; and it is not too short.
Upon this custom the men now stand. And they are wise, when a contest of this momentous kind is waging, to act on the defensive. But I confess that the final settlement of the question is not likely to rest here. Sooner or later the nine-hour movement will probably return. I think it good that it should. It is well that the men should prefer additional leisure, which means additional power of so much that cannot be bought with money, to mere increase of wages. And if a nine-hour day could be secured with reasonable wages, we ought all to rejoice at it. But that time has not yet come. And for the present the men now on strike distinctly repudiate a nine-hour movement. They stand on the defen- Ifive ; they are resisting an innovation, an unprovoked attack on their hours of t, which they consider (and are they not right ?) most valuable to them. On e possession of those hours, on the right employment of them, the future hopes their whole order depend. 1 am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Temple, 5th August, 1861. VERNON LusuncaTon.
Previous page
