THE TIMES AND THE TRADES' UNIONS.
THETimes is evidently determined, if it can, to change the Trades' Unions into vast Secret Societies, with concealed objects, unknown leaders, and unpublished rules of action. That must be the immediate and the frightful effect of refusing them legal status, the policy which the Times is endeavouring to force upon Parliament and the public, partly by argument which is unobjectionable, and partly by a device which, when its possible results are considered, almost .deserves the epithet of wicked. That journal receives, like every other, full reports of the evidence taken by the Royal Commission on Trades' Unions as it proceeds, but instead of publishing them, or abstracting them, or suppressing them, it publishes chiefly those portions of the evidence which tell against the men, rejecting equally conclusive evidence upon their side. The Members of Parliament who read these excerpta will never look at the evidence in bulk, and will therefore come to the final debate with minds saturated with anti-Union prejudices, convinced especially that the main 'object of the Unions is to restrict Trade. Every unsound rule is carefully paraded, without the Society's explanation, every oppressive rule indignantly denounced without any statement of its true object, while evidence of the beneficial action of the Unions on masters as well as men is left to be discovered by the very few who will study the Blue-Books for themselves. Mr. Conolly's statement that the men think of themselves instead of the masters is given at length, but Mr. Applegarth's statement that men are prohibited from underselling their masters by making direct bargains with individual customers —a rule directly against the men's interest—is suppressed. The Times is trying to show that the Unions endeavour to reduce wages to an average, that they prohibit skilful workmen from doing more than their fellows, and thus forcibly deprive the best hands of the benefit of their skill. Undoubtedly the evidence extracted from Mr. Robert Harnott does tend to justify that impression, but that evidence should be read amidst the mass of testimony, not apart from it. So read, it assumes a very different aspect, a bad one, it may be, in the eyes of many, but still a totally different one. The object of the Unions, as we read the whole evidence as yet recorded, is not to prevent the masters from apportioning pay to work and merit, but to secure a minimum of wages to the average workman. Mr. Applegarth and Mr. George Potter explained the ideas of the Unions on this part of the subject very forcibly and frankly, and the drift of their evidence is this. The Unions consider that the interest of the whole body of men in the Union is superior to that of any single group, and that the collective judgment is, in most cases, superior to the judgment of the individuaL In thus believing they may be wrong, but they are wrong in company with every learned profession, and every branch of the public services. Mr. Roebuck, whose questions display a feeling of bitter hostility to the Unions, would himself uphold the Bar in expelling from its ranks, and thereby ruining, any bar- rister who took less than the regular fee ; who " hugged attorneys," that is, conciliated the masters; or broke through any other "professional etiquette," that is, Trades' Union rule. It is only in their application of such rules that the Unions can be exceptionally oppressive, and what is their process ? Every workman claiming admission must be pro- posed and seconded by two members who have worked with him, and who testify that he is a good average workman, that he is in his trade an educated. man—just the Bar rule. Then the Union secures to him a minimum fee or wage. This wage is only the average, and is settled between masters and men, and when settled no one must take less, because if he did the masters would be gradually enabled to force down the rule by pressure on individuals. No coercion is, however, exercised as to wages, except that exercised by the Bar— expulsion from the society. Mr. Applegarth, secretary to the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, Mr. Potter, secretary to the General Council, and Mr. Allan, secretary to the Amalgamated Engineers, all testify that as societies, their highest penalty is expulsion. Individuals may " twit" or menace seceders, but the society only expels, and its members do not refuse to work with the man subsequently, if he is " legal to the trade," that is, has been at the work five years. Nobody is expelled for taking more than the average, if he can only get it, unless his getting more is distinctly injurious to his fellow-workmen. For example, a very strong and skilful man may set bricks at a rate most workmen cannot equal. If he is first on the line, say in building a wall, they must equal him, and the Unions, regarding this as unhealthy oppression, prohibit the practice,—one which, oddly enough, is, under the name of "back-breaking," severely condemned in the Report upon Gang Labour. Of course, expulsion, like disbarring, may be a very serious thing in its consequences ; but it is no more oppressive than the same power now claimed and exercised by every Club in England, the House of Commons not excepted. The only hardship is, that payments made for many years by a man who has received little assistance may be sacrificed, and this could be remedied by the introduction of a new rule. It is not an argument against Unions, but against a defect of system in their mode of assuring. The minimum rate of wage is no doubt supported by a kind of caste compulsion, or trade etiquette, because, if it were not, the individual workman would have to fight the capitalist and hunger all alone, — the precise situation which union is intended to prevent. No doubt this produces occasional general strikes, but it also pre- vents local and individual strikes, as the men in any shop are in practice compelled to consult the whole trade, who often oblige them to give up their own grievance. Union, in fact, gives the men the support of funds nearly equal to those of the capitalist ; they deal with him on an equality, and Mr. Applegarth quoted at least one instance where both men and masters approved the system :— " Have you any evidence that that has acted beneficially upon the state of the trade, that any town, for instance, has been the better for it since it has been enforced?—Yes. There is a very remarkable instance at Sheffield. Our society has been in exist- ence since March, 1862, in that place. They were receiving then 26s. a week, and working fifty-eight and a half hours, and receiv- ing the same rate of wages in winter as in summer. After our branch had increased there, the men began to think that they were not so well paid as men in other towns, and they applied to
•
the masters for more. It was not settled without a dispute ; they had a strike for some few weeks, and then they got what they desired, including a code of working rules. Since that they have had many meetings with their employers, and the employers were well satisfied with the conduct of the men, and expressed them- selves so. It happened that the masons and other branches of the building trade had asked for and obtained the Saturday half- holiday, and our men thought it was not fair that they should work longer than the others, so they went to the employers, simply instructed by a resolution of our branch, to ask the em- ployers if they would grant the half-holiday. The employers said, ' Yes, we will,' and a short time afterwards granted it. They said, What is more, we have a suggestion to make to you carpenters. We are well satisfied with the manner in which you have met us during the last few years on trade affairs; but there is one thing we should like to suggest to you, and that is, that we should have a board composed of an equal number of masters and men, and that any little grievance on the part of either one or the other should be submitted to this board so composed, thus preventing'our getting into a large dispute. We will agree to appoint a number of masters if you will appoint an equal number of men.' The men went back to those who had sent them, and they gladly accepted that proposal, and there has been no such thing as a strike since that Board of Arbitration was established. There is not a town in England where, taking into consideration the working hours, and the wages, and the price of provisions, the men work on better conditions than they do in Sheffield."
That case will never be quoted in the Times. The men, in fact, in combining to secure a minimum, are, so long as they do not terrorize, simply placing themselves in a position to discuss with the employer the rate they will take, simply depriving him of his power to act absolutely alone. As they form one of the two contracting parties, this is only fair.
The Union rules on piecework are more doubtful. It is quite clear from the evidence that the Societies discourage that mode of payment as much as possible. All the witnesses say it tends to three results—bad work, exhaustive hours, and low pay, and all, as we read their evidence, have another objection behind. It enables a few quick and good hands to monopolize work, and the Unions prohibit monopoly of work in the general interests of the trade. Witness after witness, indeed every witness examined, assumes as a cardinal datum that the whole body of the men represented in the Union has a right to prevent any section from pursuing any trade prac- tice injurious to health or to intellectual progress. They have a right, for example, to limit hours of work, and would expel any number of men who submitted to excessive hours. The same Finciple is applied to piecework, and wherever possible, the Unions actually go the length of abolishing it, by com- pelling members to divide any surplus remaining in the hands of the sub-contractor after payment of the "regular" wages. This is clearly an infringement, and a grave infringement, of human liberty. A man may have no moral right to work himself to death,—though even that proposition must depend upon his motives, for he may be dying for others,—but clearly no human being can have a right to stop him. Count von Bismarck's exer- tions for Germany will probably end in paralysis; but that is no justification for a law forcing him to rest. The Unions in making such a rule are both unwise and harsh, but then they are within their right as Association. So long as they permit departure without punishment, so long have they a right to keep up rules against piecework. The club which insisted on its members wearing violet gloves would be a silly club, but while any one could withdraw his name it would not be an unjust organization. This is the real point at issue in con- sidering the position of Trades Unions. The rules may be wise or silly, but are they voluntarily obeyed? If they are the question ends, and the bulk of the evidence as yet pro- duced tends to a conclusion of this kind. Individual members do occasionally employ what amounts to coercion, but the Unions, which are managed by the abler workmen, discourage all but three forms of compulsion—expulsion, sending to Coventry, and refusal to work with the disobedient. Of these the first is perfectly just, members obtaining aid in consider- ation of obedience, provided only that they are fairly treated as to back payments. Usually this is the case, the member having received nearly as much as he paid, but individual cases of hardship may and do occur, and ought to be pre- vented by fairer rules adopted by the Unions themselves. The second is just or unjust according to circumstances, and just or unjust, is nobody's business outside the society. We might as well complain of a knot of curled darlings cutting a cad, as of joiners not speaking to a particular joiner. The third rule is oppressive, but not illegal, workmen having a clear right to choose their own associates, without anybody's interference, except by ridicule or remonstrance. Heavier penalties existed once, but the heaviest now existing is rat- tening—hiding workmen's tools—and this practice is steadily discouraged by the abler men. Mr. Applegarth gives distinct testimony upon this point as to his society :- " What steps do you take to discourage anything of that kind ? —I can mention an instance. One of our members was working. at Cambridge, at a job for Mr. Myers, of London. The men there attempted to make him pay a footing, a most objectionable thing to the man. He did not pay for the first week or two, and then. he declined, I think, the next. At all events some of his tools were hid. The man came to the branch and complained. The case was referred to the Executive Council, and they said, If the workmen on that job have done so he shall have all the protection which our funds can afford, and we will render him support ; and if we could find out who had hid his tools we should take the case into a court of law.' That is a case which we have now under consideration, and if we find out the man who hid the tools we shall make an example of him."
There are many parts of the Union system, no doubt, whielr are most unwise and objectionable, but the effect of the- evidence as yet produced is not what the Times so adroitly makes it out to be,—not that Unions are bad in themselves; . but that they need on points somewhat wiser, more consider- ate, and less selfish administration—statements no one who defends them has ever attempted to deny. If the evidence is published at all piecemeal, which is a pity, it should be pub- lished fairly, like the report of a trial or a suit, not with an obvious intention to excite a prejudice against the demand for a legal status, which would be the best security alike for the legality and the fairness of Union procedure. Combination will never be given up until replaced by co-operation, and the only effect of the success of the Times' policy would be to cover the country with secret societies.
We must add, that all the witnesses are as yet strongly in favour of arbitration, which, as it would give the men a fair chance, their opponents ridicule. The single argument produced is that there is nothing to arbitrate about, the men claiming one sum per diem, and the masters another, but the answer is simple. There is something to arbitrate about, namely, whether the men complaining are receiving the market rate of the trade, as shown by the returns from different counties,- and a rate fairly parallel with that paid in equally prosperous. or unprosperous branches of labour. The men ask no more than that ; keep up a most elaborate system of statistics to find out that, and the masters, if they offer less, cannot com- plain if it is not taken. Their resource is not to work. Arbitration, when tried, succeeds, as in the Sheffield instance quoted above. Of course obedience to the award must be "volun- tary," but it will, from the necessity of the case, be voluntary only as eating is voluntary. The masters fear strikes, the men fear strikes, and their fears will mutually impel them to accept any alternative which does not involve the submission of one party to the other, and will, moreover, guarantee their adhesion: to the award.
Previous page
