The Recent Labour War in England.

Progress, Volume VI, Issue 3, 2 January 1911, Page 516

The Recent Labour War in England.

The failure of trade-unionism to solve the labour problem is seen by many writers in the great lock-out in the Tyne and Clyde yards. Some 50.000 men were locked out by the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, and during the trouble much was said in print which is now worth attention. Something must be allowed for the influence of panic during the stress of the struggle, but when all is done in that direction there remains much food for reflection.

The Morning Post (London) thought that labour difficulties had brought England "to the brink of a disaster difficult to parallel in industrial history, for the three great industries of the nation—coal, cotton, and shipbuilding involved in a conflict with the Central Committee of the Trade Union, and strike is following after strike. At one time the trade unions made a collective bargain with the employers, and it was expected that this treaty would mark the end of England's great labour wars, but it seems the men have grown restless and in various instances have taken affairs into their own hands, so the bargain has proved a failure. In a letter published over the signature of the general secretary of the union we read : —

"The lock-out is directly attributable to small bodies of our own members taking the law into their own hands and acting contrary to the advice of all the officials of the union, both local and national."

This is exactly in harmony with the manifesto issued by the executive committee of the Employers' Federation, in which they urge that they were merely striking against strikers, and driven to extremes by the fact that the execution of large contracts was actually hindered by the sectional strikers, such as riveters. They conclude their manifesto as follows: "A condition of affairs thus exists that can not continue. The National Agreement has been collectively accepted by the societies on behalf of the men. It must, also be respected and observed by the individual workmen, or become practically a dead letter. The Federation regret a dispute which must unfortunately affect many of the members of the other trades who are parties to the agreement. The necessity for taking drastic action has been forced upon the Federation. There can be no resumption of work until a better state of affairs is assured."

The absolute powerlessness of the trade union to retain the loyalty of its members is considered palpable. In the labour army men desert the standard as they choose, and can not be controlled by the executive committee, says the London Times, which adds:

"When men are determined to throw down their tools and walk out, nothing will prevent them. Expulsion from the union, even if it could be legally exercised,

which is doubtful, would not hold back the younger men; they would laugh at it. The society is truly in a quandary. The absence of control revealed in the story told by the Employers' Federation is complete, and will probably cause astonishment among those who have not been watching the trade union movement closely. "We are not disposed to lay particular blame on the officials of this society, and may even commiserate with them on having been singled out for an example. Their case is conspicuous, but it is representative of a general movement. The unions have been losing control of their members now for several years."

"We still think," said the Westminster Gazette, "that the difficulty might have been met in some way less dangerous to national interests than by a lock-out on a gigantic scale." The "national interests" refers to the completion of ships for the Admiralty. "The employers can not possibly guarantee a date for the completion of the boats," laments The Standard (London) for "the trade unions have been seriously weakened," their members "have virtually repudiated their leaders, and do not regard any agreement as binding." These statements represent the general tone of the London press of all parties. The violators of labour agreements have not the sympathy even of Justice (London), an extreme Socialist organ which, while disapproving hasty entrance into agreements on the part of workingmen, condemns the sporadic strikes which result from their violation. On this point Justice remarks :

"As Social Democrats, we naturally would deprecate these local and irresponsible strikes. There must be solidarity among the workers. The unions, democratically constituted, must, in order to be effective, be able to control their members. The trade-union officials, democratically elected, must be able to command the respect and confidence of those who elect them. If the officials are stale and old and reactionary, and lack the confidence of the members, then new ones should be put in their places. "To enter upon these strikes without the sanction of the union tends only to create disunion, confusion, and ultimately bring about absolute failure. It is very difficult, however, to lay down anything like hard-and-fast rules. Therefore, the workers should be wary of entering into any agreements that tie their hands,

paralyze their efforts, and leave them thus manacled and stricken, an easy prey for the masters."

The London Spectator echoes the opinion of the London Times in attributing all the alleged lawlessness and want of principle shown by striking workmen and the gradual undermining of honest tradeunionism to the influence of Socialism, and we are told:

"All over the country there appears at the present moment to be a condition of

unrest among the wage-earning classes which may seriously imperil the whole trade-union organisation. What causes this unrest? It may conceivably be due to the Socialist propaganda. The essence of that propaganda is preaching the doctrine of discontent. Old trade-unionists have constantly urged that the end to be aimed at is more friendly relationship between masters and men. The Socialists, on the contrary, teach that a capitalist is an enemy with whom there should lie no parleying and for whom there should be no quarter.” The Socialists laugh at trade-unionism as an antiquated and inadequate instrument of conciliation. Hence this lock-out, which is practically a deadlock. The Socialists, according to The Spectator, are the marplots of the game:

''They have encouraged the idea that trade-unionism on the old lines is a playedout farce and that wage-earners must look exclusively to political action to improve their position. A combination of these two doctrines may easily produce a feeling that workmen ought to display their strength at every possibly opportunity and that it does not much matter if tradeunionism is hereby destroyed."