TRADES UNION TACTICS IN GREAT BRITAIN.

Otago Witness, Issue 2323, 8 September 1898, Page 44

TRADES UNION TACTICS IN GREAT BRITAIN.

There are many warm friends of trades unions who deplore misguided practices of some of these bodies which tend seriously to lessen their usefulness. The colonies have not yet had much experience of some of the evils perpetrated by misguided prd too zealous officials of the unions, and for the sake of the workers it is sincerely to be hoped that moderation and fair dealing will be the prevailing principles of colonial unionism. Thoughtful consideration of an article headed "A Study in Trade Unionism " which appeared in the April number of the Nineteenth Century will show to what lengths the leaders of the unions at Home will go in their unfairness to employers and that care should be exercised by those in authority in the labour world of the colon' es to prevent such a policy endangering tlie relations of employers and employed. To this end we reproduce the article : — A STUDY ITST TRADE UNIONISM. It is generally assumed, although Mr Sidney Webb does uov admit it, th=if, the modern trade unions are the lineal sucees sors of the mediasval trade gilds, which Bacon called "fraternities in evil." However this may be we can find in the methods and results of the new unionism some things which recall the operations of the old gildism. The unions, like the gilds, are clo^e corporations of labour, and, like the gilds, have by their exactions and limitations driven away industries from localities. Thus ju&t as the crafts left the mediseval towns and settled anew in remote districts aw.iy from the arm of the gilds, so shipbuilding, under the pressure of locai trade unionism, left the Thames for the Tyne and Clyde ; lace-making left ' Nottingham for Ayrshire ; and glass-making left England and Scotland for Germany and Belgium. The old trade gilds rained the mediaeval cities : is vhe new trade union going to ruin the industry of the whole country? The supject demands the most serious inquiry. The strike of the engineers, with all its pitiful detail, its financial loss, and its attendant suffering, has, after all, given us something to Be thankful for. It ajs served to open the eyes of even the Morleyiin " plain man " to some of the practices of those organisations of labour which for iive-and-tiventy years economists have boer> trying to teach us to fall do-un and wor&nip, and which politicians have been elevating into the dignity of a fifth estate. During the progress of the strike there has been revealed, "bit by bit and with relentless precision, a most damaging and thought-p"o-voking series of facts. The old monopolists, whose operations "in restraint of trade " were so denounced by the old school of economists, are succeeded by the traoe unionists whose operations in restraint of labour have been brought to the light of day. Their methods, it is true, have long been more or less if amiliar to those actually engaged in industrial pursuits ; but it is safe to say that not one of the enghieer employers realised how much the engineering industry was being injured by trade unionism until last year they began to compare notes. It was the discovery they made of the extent to which they were being victimised that drew the em'ployeis closer into line. There is not in industrial history a more striking incident than ibis drawing together of 700 capitalist employers, all full of keen trade rivalry and professional jealousy, into one compact body for

mutual protection against an influence ■ whose insidious workings threatened to ru ; n the whole of them. The more assertive the more violent, became the revolting unions the more resolutely the employers held together, week by week adding to the strength and solidity of their alliance, while , week by week the unions wasted their sub- j stance in riotous starvation. i Not the least suggestive feature of the j whole labour struggle was the quietness ! with which it ended. One listened in vain ; for any certaminis gaudia of the employers. | A great struggle, perhaps the greatest in- j dustrial struggle on record, ended without a sound of Vse victis. And though the allied trade unions were defeated, their members went back to work, if not without a murmur at least without exhibition of i rage. This is very remarkable. Labour has had its Sedan : is the Communist outbreak to follow? Meanwhile, at any rate the deduction is clear that each side was so ; heavily scarred in the fight as to be indisposed to the expression of either joy or sorrow. The allied trade unions, or, to be more accurate, the A.S.E., have been struggling for absolute domination of the engineering trade. The demand for the monopoly in the working of automatic machine tools was a demand for power to control the production. When it failed it was suspended in favour of a demand for an eight hour day, not that an eight hour day was generally desired, but in the belief or hope that to get rid of that demand employers would give way on the machine question. But the design has always been the same — to control the output — which means to atbitrarily restrain labour, to artificially raise costs, and to consequently place the industry absolutely at the mercy of our foreign competitors. The general belief is — or, at all events, has been, for there are now signs of revulsion — that trade unionism has done for the working classes what nothing else could fiave done 'in raising their social condition and improving their wages. This is a popular fallacy. The social condition of the working classes has just improved pari passu with the general improvement of society. There is no trade union in the world that can exact far its members higher wages than the industry can afford, except with the certainty of destroying that industry. Wanes have not risen becau.se of trade unionism, and would probably have been higher without it. But while unionism has not raised the rewards of honest labour it lias put a premium on inefficiency by insisting that the idle and incompetent worker shall be placed on (he same wage-level as the most skilful and most industrious. Politicians and others who glibly reueat the trade-union phrases — " standard rate " and " minimum "v age " — do not stop to consider the essentially demoralising character of the principle these I phrases represent. In p>.ce of honest toil it favours "the trade-union stroke." Instead of inciting to the perfection of craftskill, it compels the most highly skilled artisan to keep pace with the most slovenlydawdler. Instead of raising the wages of good workmen, trade unionism tends to >ncrease the cost of production all round by making everything dear for the consumers, of whom the majority are the working classes themselves. For the injunction, "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might," is given too often the rule to yield the smallest possible modicum of labour for the largest possible .iay's wage. Nothing has more startled good easy people who have been accustomed to regard trade unionists as qualifying for seats within the arch-angelic circle than the circumstantial statements published by the Engineer Employers' Federation in illustration of the scamping which has been practised in the engine shops. Nothing more conclusively disposes of the favourite theory of trade unionism than the fact that in the | United States, where trade unionism is | comparatively weak, wages are higher thin | in this country, where it is all-powerful. It does not follow that the condition of the working man in America is better than that of his fellow in Great Britain ; but 4t4 t ''s certain that the Briton has gained no advantage over the American by- virtue of his trade union. And all tlie beauty of the economic theory of trade unionism, as embracing the first principles of citizenship and the glorious privilege of combination, must not blind us to the ugliness of hs practices. Look at it, for instance, as it appears in the following item of police court intelligence taken from a daily paper : — Trade Unionisit Ag\in. At the Guildhall, London, Hobort Aston arj>l'cd to Aldenuau Sir Henry E. Knight as to what lie should do, as, owing to the action of the trade union, he was positively starring. Sir Henry : What are you . Applicant : A compositor out of employment. I was originally a member of the Society oi Compositors, but, owing to certain circumstances, lost my card. Four years ago I left England, and, on returning, got work in various printing offices. 1 was for some time a reader, but through illness had to relinquish that post. Iheii I obtained two situations, both of which I lost in consequence of the action of the society, and I am starving. 1 have tried to rejom the society, but am told that the committee retuse to agam allow rue to enter. Sir Henry : It appears to me that a society which stops a man getting his bread is comBiiltmg a ciiiel act. Have you any family i Applicant: Yes, a wife and three children. I have been assisted at the Mansion House by the Lord Mayor. Sir Henry: Well, I can do nothing for you; but no doubt the press will notice your application. Surely tlie man in the street can see that there is more of the fraternity of evil than of the fraternity of labour in this kind cf thing. The cruelty illustrated in this case however, is just akin to the savagery displayed by trade-union " pickets," who well know how to exercise coercion without rhe persuasive eloqueifce of brick-bats — when brick-bats cannot be thrown with safety What we have to realise is that the stronger ii trade union is the more absolute is the ppwer it exercises over its own members ; and the larger it becomes the more presumptuous is the tyranny it attempts over others. The prostitution of the honesty of the individual worker under the evil eye of Ike " shop steward " (or society spy) has abundantly shown by the Engineer Employers' Federation in the case of the A.S.K, and of this trade union it haß also beea shown

that its object has not been to maintain the standard of craft-skill (for it has been eager to sweep into its fold any labourers in tlio engine shops who would contribute to its lunds), but to obtain the absolute command of the engine shops with a view to dic:,*ting terms to the employeis on all r-o:n sIn raising the machine question fun engineers sought to crush auotiier crf,le union — the United Machine Workers' Association — and also to coerce non-union laoouv. They have afforded a striking lesson in the jealous selfishness of trade unionism, which, while it vapours about the solidarity of labour, has spent more of its substance ard energies in internecine contests than m struggles with employers. Theu-e !ia?e been more, and incomparably more, biiler " de-" marcation disputes " between trade unions than wages disputes between trade unions and employers. Mr Tom Mann was once, if not twice, and may be again, candidate for the gensral secretaryship of the A.S.E. At the ouLbreak of the last strike he was sent by the Executive Council of the society to rave, recite, and madden through the land. And the following is what he said in the course cf a speech at Leeds in July last : — We shall not remain contented for ever wit's an eiglit-liour day. Democracy is now shaping itself, not merely to get an eight-hour day--that is by the way — but in order to get their feet effectually planted for. something else. And, fellow-workers, why funk it? 3?ace tlie situation : face the employers — our organised enemies. Do not pretend to come with mealy mouths and cry, Peace, peace. The conditions of peace are not possible until you have passed through war. Do not cry peace, and suggest quiet, and respectful and courteous negotia.tions. You will get no respectful and courteous negotiations from the other side until you have demonstrated by your behaviour that you know exactly how to tread on their corns, and more, that you are prepared, if necessary, to jump on them. This was characteristically Tom-Mannish ; but what is the " something elss " to whiih he referred? At other times there nave been vague talks of a seven, six, and five hour day to come, but something more than that was meant. We get an idea of it in a speech delivered by Mr James RatclifTe, the north-east coast delegate of the Engineers' Society, in November last, just, indeed, as the first conference was being negotiated. Mr Ratcliffe said on the eve of a meeting with the employers : " The machine question is the real cause of the dispute, and not the eight-hour question. The J masfc3>'S are fighting in order to be able to do what ; they like in their own workshops. The men will never allow them to do that. It I is to prevent it that the A.S.E.exists." This is candid enough, and just establishes our contention that the object of the engineers was to obtain absolute control of the machinery of production, and to regulate the output to their own ideas of houGSt industry. i Let us now see what some of these ideas are. The following instances of A.S.E. tactics are not specially selected, but are taken at random from the hundreds collected by the Executive Board of the Employers' Federation. They are all numbered for indemnification by the secretaries, who hold the documentary proofs : — (i) This firm were compelled by the A.S.JS. to Jiaud over two copying-lathes to two turners, and each lathe was rated at 35s per week — 70s for the two. Since the strike a labourer nas been advanced and put in charge of both machines, from which he, singly, is getting more worE~than the two A.S.E. men formerly piodiiced. The labourer receives 24s per week, which was a large increase on his former wage. Result: a saving of 46s a week and a larger output. The promotion of so-called labourers to be machine-tenders (employment not requiring skill) was the casus belli in the machine question. (5) A Manchester firm had a large planingmachine worked by an A.S.E. man, who took 190 hours to plane a large bed-casting, which a piomoted labourer, under a non-union shop foreman's supervision, is now doing m 135 hours. And how much better a man the promoted labourer may be the above case shows. Then as to routine work : — (23) Another London employer writes: — For many years it has been the <mstom o£ our A.S.JL. men to limit their output to an amount agreed upon among them. Repetition jobs occupying as long as 200 to 300 hours have Invariably been done in the same time as the "first lot almost to an hour, even though put into othe.- lathes and done by other men. Some of these jobs have since been done in another department by men not in the A.S.E., and have been done m 20 per cent, to 30 pcx - cent, less time. When new jobs are given out for which i piece-work prices are likely to be fixed, they are spun out to a lidiculous extent io mislead. Now to show more clearly society influence : — (43) Another case reported by a firm is thai; of a man who belonged to the society prior to the strike, but who, wlien tTie discharge notices were served by the employer, resigned from his society and remaineu at work. This man is now doing twice the amount of v,\ni: he did when formerly a member of the sc-i'vj. And of what can only be chiitJ'"Vii-t?vl as flagrant dishonesty under tlie society banner, one needs no stronger evidence than th.it of the two following cases : — (57) A firm reports that when making ammunition boxes for sjx-powder cartridges some years ago, it was found that in finishing up the hinges any member of t^e society employed ou the job used always *o uo exactly eight in a day. The foreman in charge knew that this was not a day's ■work, aiid he changed the nie.i, but in every case, notwithstanding that considerable changes were made, the men made exactly eight per day. A young Swiss, who did not speak English, was then put on the job, and the first day he did fifty. (58; Another instance leported by the same firm is that iv filing uxa the outside handles oi machine gxina, it wps found that any member ot the society working on the job generally did one a day, it being understood that the handle waa milled in the shop, and had only to bo smoothed iip, and the corners taken off with a file. The firm knew that this was not a day's work, but were unable to get a society man to do more than one in a day. The work was tln^i given to a gun-filer, who did not belong to ac« society, and ho did twelve a day. Are these not pretty '\<sts of the Br;< l«h working man — the coui.fr j'p pi-dor . A iul there are thousands nuui h\.o iLeni, all in the same trade. The grand panacea of co-operative production has olten been proposed to get r:d of labour disputes ; but the trade union leaders cannot tolerate co-operation. Here is an example : — (23). A firm decided to try profit-sharing rs a nifaus of increasing and improving the coadiiiviiß of production, 'ilia man. Qazdiaiix. ug»-

curred in the scheme, which was to allow them a bonus on ordinary wages, if certain results were attained. The bonus was paid for five years, and though it was really earned out of patents and special work — not out of the general work of the shop — the firm were content enough to continue the system. But the A.S.E. interfered, having pronounced a boycott against piofit-sharing as tending to weaken the loyalty of tho men to the union. The interest of the men waned year by year, and eventually the system had to be dropped, because the men, though under a twelve months' engagement, demanded the same" advance in wages as was being given in other shops in the trade where there was no bonus. They struck the shop until their demand was conceded, preferring the dictates of the society to the terms of a co-opera-tive partnership with their employers. Over and over again profit-sharing has been attempted in the engineering trade, and always with the same result, because the trade union officials, both local and central, know it would in time destroy their despotical rule. Just another case now to ilfastrate the method of encouraging young labour in the A.S.E. : — (3) A London firm had an apprentice working between two union men, all on similar machine tools. The apprentice was "interviewed" by these two men because he finished three heads (part of a stamp mill) in his day, as against their two each. The lad consxilted his father as to the choice he should make between cheating his employers out o£ one-third of his work and risking a broken head. The father having reported the affair to the principal, the lad was removed from his delicate situation and put on other work, and the unionists were left to do their minimum of work. An even moi'e glaring case is not in the Federation reports, but is within the knowledge of the present writer. A young apprentice, after a year or two's experience, was moved into another shop and put to a new job, which he attacked with all the ardour of youth and with all the zeal of one ■who loves honest industry. He had not been long at work before a " shop steward " cf the A.S.E. whispered in his ear: " Ca' canny, my lad, ca' canny ; that way o' working 'ill no' dae here. Yon job's got to last ye the week, or it'll be the worse for ye." The boy stared in amazement, and then in honest protest redoubled his energies and finished the job the same afternoon. In one day he completed work that the A.S.E. spy said should be spread over a ■whole week. As to non-union labour, it does not seem to be known, even by those who pose us authorities on labour subjects, that the A.S.E. has special legislation with regard to it. According to rule 27 of their code members of this society are entitled to contingent benefit (which is an allowance of 5s per week in addition to the ordinary out-of-work benefit of 10s per week) in the -oa^e of, inter alia, "members, acting on instructions from district committee, refusing to do work coming from shops where our members are on strike, or refusing to work with non-society men." This is equivalent to an offer of a reward by the society for all members who refuse practical recognition of the freedom of labour. And yet this society, which has had incessant quar- j rels with other trade unions, and which has persistently tried to force all the labour in the engine shops into its organisation, officially protests that it never interferes with other union or with non-union labour. (To be continued.)