"THE MORALITY OF PIECE-WORK." [To nos EDITOR OF THE "
SPECTATOR:1 r,—In reference to your article on the above subject in the Spec-
tator of January 15,1 appeal to your well-known sense of fairness to be allowed to say that, notwithstanding your unhesitating asser- tion that the Amalgamated Engineers' Union is responsible for the Erith Strike, it appears to me to be extremely doubtful, to say the liast, whether such is the case. Mr. Burnett, the secretary of the Amalgamated Engineers, who ought to know, says, in his letter to the Times, republished in last week's
Weekly Dispatch, from which I quote, that -" there is not a Single word of truth in the statement," and that "the men did not come out by the orders of their society," the council of which "knew nothing whatever of the dispute until a first meeting 'of the men was held and resolutions passed by them." He says further that, "of the men who turned out seventy were members 'of our society, twenty-five were members of the Steam-Engine Makers, and the remainder of the nearly 200 spoken of by Mr. Easton were non-society men. Thus positively a majority of the men who turned out were not in any way connected with our society." Mr. Bauld, the president of the Strike Committee, speaking at Erith on the 13th inst., said :—" So far from the strike being undertaken at the dictation of the Union, it was resolved upon at a shop meeting upon their own responsibility, and the first men to refuse the extension of piece-work were non-society men." Further evidence is afforded by a letter quoted in the Dispatch, written originally for publication in the Times, but subsequently transmitted instead to Mr. Burnett. It is signed by the aforesaid James Bauld, of the Amalgamated Engineers, Frederick Heath, steam-engine maker, and S. Grundy, non-society man. They deny the allegation that they struck by .order of the executive—which, on Mr. Grundy's part, is rather superfluous—and state that "we, with the non-society and society men, acted entirely upon our own responsibility." Mr. Mathias, another non-society man, speaking at a meeting held last Satur- day, also "protests dgainst " the accusation, and entirely agrees with Mr. Bauld and Mr. Burnett as to the origin of the dispute.
But although this testimony would appear to settle the ques- tion as to whether the Union is to blame in the present instance, I am quite willing to believe that, like other similar bodies, it .claims, and doubtless would, under certain circumstances, exer- cise, the power of ordering a strike, either at Erith or elsewhere, if it saw fit ; and your article raises the more general question as to how far it is justified in doing anything of the kind, upon 'which point you appear to be labouring under an entire miscon- ception as to the powers and functions of a Trade Union. In extremely plain language,—language which I very much doubt whether you would have used had you been addressing any other section of the community,—you charge the Union with an at- tempt "to commit theft" by "taking away from- the skilled minority a possession which they have,"—i.e., their "special capacity for labour," which in your eyes is their property -" just as much as their cash,"—in order that the majority of their constituents may reap the benefit. I trust you will not think me wanting in courtesy if, in reply, I crave the liberty to use equally plain terms, and to say that, to any man who understands what trade-unionism is, the whole of your lavish denunciation displays absolute ignorance of its fundamental prin- ciples. You speak throughout of the Trade Council as if it were a perfectly irresponsible tribunal, legislating ab extra for a body of men who have no control over its decisions, and who are bound, whether they will or no, to obey its decrees at all hazards. You forget, apparently, that the very essence of Unionism is voluntary ollesion, and not compulsion in the ordinary sense at all. The "hilbials who manage these-organisations have no power but what is vested in them by the members, and are liable to be deposed at any moment. "A breath can make them, as a breath has made," and while I admit they exercise considerable authority, it is only with the voluntary consent of their constituents. No man is obliged to become a Unionist. So long as he remains outside the Union, he owes it no allegiance, and is at perfect liberty to work how, and when, and as long as he chooses. His entering it is a perfectly voluntary act, but directly he enrols himself, he becomes ipso facto bound to the acceptance of certain rules and submission to certain discipline. It depends upon himself entirely as to how long he occupies that position. So soon as he finds the conditions irksome to himself, or thinks they are pre- judicial to the interests of his class, he can withdraw, and there is an end of the matter. From first to last, there is no question of compelling him to do anything against his will. In this re- spect, the Council of a Trade-Union occupies a position similar to that of the committee of a political club, s. cricket club, a joint-stock company, or any other association in which men band themselves together for common objects. It is entrusted with certain powers to be used for the common good, and it is utterly unreasonable to quarrel with it for exercising the very functions it was placed there to fulfil. It is conceivable that a man might, for reasons of his own, outweighing the dis- advantages, join a society involving the grossest interference with his personal liberty ; binding him, for instance, to have all his front teeth out, to never eat salt, to read nothing but the Spectator, or to live in Drury Lane ; and however onerous the bonds might be, so long as he remained a member he would be bound to fulfil his obligation. If he grew tired of them, he might withdraw, or if he declined to comply any longer with the rules, the society could eject him, but it could not compel him to comply against his will. Similarly, an engineer who joins his trade society pledges himself to the recognition of its policy in the matter of piece-work, and so long as he continues in its ranks he must obey the directions of the council, who are simply giving effect to the rules to which he has already agreed,—unless he has sufficient influence with his co-members to procure the alteration of the rules in the legitimate, constitutional manner. If, being an exceptionally skilful workman, he knows he could earn more than his fellows at piece-work, and his egoistic instincts over-ride his sense of brotherhood, he has but to give up his union, and he may earn what he can.
The truth is, Sir, that the very same objections which you urge against the Union upon this bead might be urged against its interference with the freedom of its members in fifty other ways. Every society has rules of its own, arising out of the necessities of its particular trade, forbidding its members from doing this, that, or the other, which might, perhaps, benefit some individually, but would act prejudicially upon the interests of the general body. To speak of such discipline, voluntarily under- gone, as tyranny is, to use your own language, "nonsense." I grant to the full all you say as to the immorality of the proceed- ing, if the Union acted upon those outside it in the way you evidently think it does. But my case is, that it does nothing of the kind. And though I can suppose it to include some men who feel that the restrictions hinder them from increasing their income as they would like, and whose sense of camaraderie would not be sufficient to deter them from constituting a "recalcitrant minority," if they thought their resistance would be successful, it is evident that, narrow-minded and selfish as they may be, the advantages in other respects of remaining in the Union are too great to admit of their resigning or running the risk of expulsion, although they might thereby gain full liberty to sell their labour as they chose.
In conclusion, Sir, while apologising for what, I fear, you will consider the undue length of this letter, let me earnestly beg of you to reconsider your position. The adverse opinion of tho Spectator is no light thing to be thrown into the scale against these men, who are struggling to emancipate themselves from the last remaining fetters of serfdom, and to raise their class to the full standard of citizenship. Pais ce que dois, aduienne gne pourra. As a disciple of the religion of Humanity, I, at least, cannot refrain from insisting on the justice of their cause.—I am, Sir, &c.,
30 Rushmore Road, Clapton Park, E. HENRY ELLIS.
Previous page
