TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE TRUTH OF THE BUILDING STRIKE.
"IfF there is one circumstance more than another which is essential to the wholesome development of social life in England, it is that each class should feel that the news- papers devoted to the interests of the others intend, at least, to treat it justly and to give its statements fair play. Cer- tainly, it is far from easy for one class to be perfectly just in the treatment of questions which affect mutual rivalries; but it is exceedingly easy to try to be so, to aim at impar- tiality. Deeply as unconscious prejudice must affect all refined processes of inference and reasoning, it is a matter on the surface and easily judged of, whether or not there is the wish to give the facts on both sides. And nothing rankles so long and so deeply in the mind of any class as a profound impression that the social organs of other classes deliberately wish to exclude all evidence on the one side, and to prejudice public opinion against it. This causes a far deeper and more rankling injury than any open political injustice, for against effectual misrepresentation in the press there is no appeal. It is a far more fatal thing to social harmony to find a deep-rooted indication of want of common candour, than to meet with open hostility. The worst open foes may be reconciled, but those who have accused us openly of evil, and then refused to publish our vindication, have excited not merely our self-love but the best part of our nature against them.
There is great danger just now lest the working classes of England should entertain this feeling, and entertain it justly against the leading organs of the middle and higher class. It is true that much was done last year, and done very ably and effectually, by the Social Science Association's committee on Trades' Unions, to prove that there is a large section among both the masters and the professional classes who wish to see things as they are, and not by the light of ex parts statements. But in spite of all that was then done, no sooner do fresh quarrels arise than the old spirit of un- fairness arises also, and is indicated by that sensitive baro- meter of class candour—the public press. We have taken some pains to inquire into the facts of the present building strike, and we regret to say- that they are about as near to what is commonly put forth in our leading journals as one of the late Mr. James's historical romances was to the truth of history. We have no disposition at all to sustain the opera- tives in a false position, nor to let the bad political economy pass which they often put out in their own defence, but we do wish to see their case fairly before the public. Now, listen to the two statements. Any one who had merely in- formed himself as to the progress of the present strike by reading our principal journals, would suppose that the true facts of the case had been something like this: that in March last—the building trades being then in a very de- pressed state--the operatives in the various London building trades had again struck for a nine-hours day with the ten hours' wages, that the masters in a few leading firms had met them by offering a compromise, namely, payment by the hour, at such a rate that by working three hours less than the usual length of the week they could earn the same wages as before ; that this arrangement had been exceedingly popular with the best class of operatives, but that the united trades, with Mr. Potter at their head, had arbitrarily inter- fered to prevent it, and that as a consequence all the master builders of any consequence had united, "injustice of course to the best class of .their workmen," to insist on the hour system ; and that, finally, this is opposed by the men, not from any real injustice in the plan, but from the feeling that it takes a powerful weapon for future agitation out of their hands, inasmuch as the cry for shorter hours sounds much better than the cry for higher wages—a cry which would be effectually stifled by a system which allows each man to work any number of hours at his own discretion, receiving proportionate wages. Such are the statements which are repeated in the most authoritative way day by day. What are the facts of the case ? After careful examination we believe them to be as follows : Firstly. That the London building trade was never much brisker than at present ; the demand for labour being by no means slack, but very eager, in consequence of the Crystal Palace works, the new bridges, and draining operations, as well as more general causes. This disposes of the economical objection that it is unreasonable and selfish folly to ask for higher wages in a falling market when the master's profit is already dwindling from the slackness of demand. Secondly. It is not exactly true that the strike came, in the first instance, from the men; we lay no stress what- ever on this circumstance. The facts were that, early in March, all the various departments of the building trade— the carpenters and painters, the bricklayers, and the masons --simultaneously memorialized the masters for the reduc- tion to nine hours. Of course this looked to the masters exactly like a challenge ; and though the men deny that any strike was contemplated this year in case of refusal, the masters would have been very foolish not to contemplate it. Accordingly, Messrs. Lucas and Messrs. Kelk gave a week's notice at once, on the 16th of March, that after the 23rd they would pay by the hour, offering such terms that the men might get their old wages, 33s. per week, by work- ing 55i instead of 581- hours—that is, giving them three hours on Saturday afternoon. All who did not accept these terms were to be locked out.
Thirdly. Such was the apparent gain to the men. What, however, was the counterbalancing loss? For the last ten years the rule of the trade has been to pay half as much again for labour beyond the ten hours—a "time and a half" as it was technically called. This was a check to habitual overtime in the masters, as well as a compensation to the men for ex- hausting special work. But the firms which introduced the hour system, made, at the same time, we are assured, two dis- tinct statements: first, that they should always engage ten- hours men rather than nine-hours men ; and, secondly, that no extra payment for overtime could in any case be allowed —as overtime could not exist on a system of hour payment.
Fourthly. Now, let our readers observe the real state of the supposed concession. The hour system was nominally introduced to enable men to determine their own hours of work without injustice to the master. But the masters simultaneously declare that nine-hours men will never be engaged when ten-hours men can be found, so that it has very little, if any, of this effect. But, on the other hand, it has another very important effect in cutting off extra pay- ment for overtime. Messrs. Lucas, Kelk, and others, as we understand, are at the present moment working their men systematically for twelve, or in some cases even fourteen or fifteen hours, and paying them nothing extra for overtime. Now in five days of consistent twelve hours' work there will be a loss of the overtime pay on two hours in each day, or a loss of 6s. 3d. to each man, while he will only gain the three hours on Saturday, or about ls. 8d. Whenever, therefore, overtime is systematic, the workman loses a great deal by the new arrangement. But it will be said that on the hour system overtime is a matter of choice. No doubt, where the master has no alternative : but he will always turn off men not willing to work overtime at his pleasure, when he can get men in their places 'who are willing. On the whole, therefore, we take it that the only gain—the three hours on Saturday—is far more than compensated by the loss of extra pay in busy times, and the loss of the check which an extra rate of wages puts upon overtime. Fifthly. Such being the new rule and its operation, that rule has at present been adopted only by a few great firma, of which the principal are Messrs. Kelk, Lucas, Smith, Trol- lope, Holland and Haunen, and Mansfield. Some of these, we believe, have conceded in general that the men have some right to a voice in determining the hours of labour. But the effect was to produce a lock-out at these special firms, as very few of the men would come in to the conditions; but this limited lock-out was followed by no strike till the 10th of June. Before this all the trades had intimated their willingness to refer the matter to arbitration. A few gen- tlemen had sounded the bricklayers especially whether no compromise could be effected independently of the nine- hours question, and the bricklayers expressed their willing- ness to come to a compromise on the terms now de- mended. Many gentlemen, including, we believe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Myers, Sir M. Pete, Mr. Dunnage, Mr. L. Cubitt (architect), and others, considered this compromise a fair one ; but nothing came of it. More of the building firms joined the hour league, when the masons entirely, and the bricklayers partially, struck work on the 10th of June, de- manding five ten-hour days, with a six-hour day on Satur- day, for the old terms, 33s. a week. These terms have been conceded to the masons by thirty of the smaller firms, and to the bricklayers by nearly as many ; and in two cases, that of the companies building the new bridges at Hungerford and Westminster, even better terms have been granted, as a full ten hours' pay is given for the six hours of Saturday work. The masons compute that about two hundred out of one thousand of their body are now employed on their own terms ; one hundred and twenty more on the hour principle ; and that near seven hundred are still on strike. The brick- layers have struck for the same terms, but only against the firms which have adopted the hour principle, and a few others of the more important firms. They calculate that about one hundred and eighty of their men are employed on their own terms ; that about one hundred and fifty are on strike ; about five hundred out of work because they will not go in for the hour system ; and the rest employed on the old terms. It is probable that the masons at least have considerable chance of success. Their labour is in demand ; they are well organized, and have already persuaded some thirty firms to acquiesce in their demands, which are, in fact, the old system plus a half-holiday on Saturday. Sixthly. The building trades are all willing to accept an arbitration, reserving the principle of a regulated day. They do not object to hour payment, so long as there is some check on the length of the day such as is involved in extra payment for overtime. This reserved, they have expressed their wish to refer the matter to the Institute of Architects —a very fair tribunal.
Seventhly. As to the political organization of this strike, it is simply and wholly false that it is directed by Mr. Potter and the Committee of the United Trades, which is no longer in existence. In fact, Mr. Potter has little or nothing to do with the matter. The carpenters, plasterers, and painters, to whose organization he directly belongs, have not struck. At the special firms which have adopted the hour payment the men are locked out, but this is all. Mr. Potter has no part in the matter. Nor are the acting committees of the masons, bricklayers, &e., really the representatives of the Trades' Unions ; they have nothing to do with the management of the Trades' Unions. They are elected yearly by society and non-society men at a public meeting, and in the case of the bricklayers, we believe the non-society electors were in the majority. The elected are all society men, it is true, but they are chosen by the trade at large, and not by the Trades' Unions. Every important matter is referred back to the electors. No less than thirty meetings of this kind have been called by the bricklayers since March to determine matters that the committee thought beyond their jurisdiction. It is therefore by no means true that they are overridden by paid secretaries. The members of the committee are only paid an ordinary workman's wages out of the funds subscribed. Such is, we believe, a fair statement of the whole case. The hour principle, without any regulation of the length of the day, as it is actually worked, is a fatal change for the working man. It is a recurrence to the system of ten years back, when the principle of extra pay for time beyond ten hours was first adopted. This is the real effect of the change ; the apparent concession to the workman of the power to regulate the length of his own day is only an apparent con- cession so long as nine-hours men are warned that they will only be employed in default of ten-hours men. We confess that we thought, and still think, the strike of 1859 a mis- taken measure ; but we also think that the resistance to the unregulated action of the new principle is justified by the clearest considerations, and what is more, that in the present state of the trade it is quite likely to succeed. But whether it succeed or not, let us at least unite to condemn the un- worthy practice of misrepresenting the men's case—of all policies the one best fitted to create such a chasm between the different classes as the present generation at least will hardly be able to bridge over.
Previous page
