The Trade Union Congress. (1911)

From the October 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the recent Trade Union Congress, held at Newcastle-on-Tyne during the week beginning September 4th., Mr. William Mullin, in his presidential address, made an appeal which is certainly worthy of note. In speaking of the railway strike he expressed admiration for the men, saying that “they accomplished a great deed, and the fruits will speedily come to them.” The present writer has been puzzling his brains to think what great deed, such as would call forth the admiration of Mr. Mullin, was accomplished by the railwaymen in their strike, and has come to the conclusion that it can only be the sheep-like readiness they evinced to return to work at the bidding of their leaders.

Surely that must be it. Such action would undoubtedly commend itself to Mr. Mullin, for he continued his address by urging upon the railway workers to “place implicit trust in their leaders.” Presumably in the same child-like fashion as they did in 1907, when Richard Bell and the other A.S.R.S. officials delivered them over, bound hand and foot in the meshes of the “conciliation” scheme.

But this appeal to the workers to put “implicit trust” in their leaders becomes really almost too funny for words when we consider—upon a perusal of the report of the Congress proceedings on the following Friday—the spirit in which such trust has been accepted by the trustees. A resolution was moved on the Friday severely condemning the Bill introduced into Parliament by Mr. Will Crooks to end industrial disputes. The Bill is a curiosity. No one who has any knowledge of Mr. Crooks would accredit him with any excessive degree of subtlety. He often speaks of himself as being nothing more than a “plain, honest man.” But one would have thought that even Mr. Crooks could have managed to frame a bill that was not so obviously all in favour of the employers. Why did he not obtain the Machiavelian help of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald or Mr. Snowden ?

A delegate remarked, during the discussion, that he could understand such a bill coming from an employers’ association, or from those interested in keeping the workers down, but he could not understand its being the proposal of a trade unionist. We, however, of course, can quite understand the bill—apart from its lack of the confusing elements usually to be found in Labour bills—being the work of a “Labour leader.” All that has happened is that “plain” Mr. Crooks has, in this particular instance, been rather too plain in his support of capitalism.

Briefly, it is a bill that seeks to abolish strikes altogether. It lays it down that employers and employees should give at least thirty days notice of an intended change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages and hours ; that it shall be unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a lock-out, or for any employee to go on strike on account of any dispute before or during a reference of such a dispute to a board of conciliation and investigation, any employer declaring or causing a lock-out being liable to a fine of not less than £20 nor more than £200 for each day or part of a day that such lock-out exists, and any employee going on strike being liable to a fine of not less than £2 nor more than £10 per day. (Why didn’t Mr. Crooks make the employees’ fine £100 or £1,000 per day while he was about it ? The modesty of the bill in only claiming £10 per day from a man who is probably striking for a living wage is distinctly rich.)

A further clause in the bill declares that any person who incites, encourages, or aids in any manner any employer to declare and continue a lockout, or any employee to go or continue on strike, shall be liable to a fine of not less than £10 nor more than £200.

Apart, however, from its contents, the Bill is noteworthy by reason of the position and action of one of its backers as showing how he regards the “implicit trust” that has been placed in him by his followers. The bill was backed by Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. George Barnes, Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Enoch Edwards. The last-named gentleman, upon the bill being attacked and severely criticised as being in every sense derogatory to the interests of trade unionism, gave a remarkable explanation and repudiation of his backing. He said, firstly, that “the Bill contained propositions which he, after 40 years study of these questions, could not support.” He then went on to explain that “when I gave my name to Mr. Crooks, I had no idea I was being asked to put my name to a bill of this sort . . . my name is there purely by inadvertence, and I shall take every means possible to assure everybody that the sentiments in that bill are not in harmony with my own views. To tell you the honest truth, I had not seen the bill.” (Vide “Daily Chronicle,” 9.9.11.)

A delegate hereupon very pertinently remarked that “Only fools put their names to things without looking at them.” But this expression is not strong enough to be used in condemnation of the criminal negligence and vacuity of an avowed leader and paid representative of Labour, who assents to a Parliamentary measure which, if passed and carried into effect, would take from the workers the only weapon they possess while capitalism lasts, to combat the encroachments of their masters on the economic field. These be your gods, O Israel; these are the men in whom the workers are asked to place “implicit trust.” The impertinence, the cynicism, of such an appeal !

It might have been expected—that is, except by anyone who had some general knowledge of trade union officialdom—that one of the most important points to be considered at the Congress, and one that would raise the most animated discussion, would have been the question of the late Labour upheavals and their so-called settlements.

But, as a matter of fact, only a very lukewarm interest was shown in the resolution passed condemning the use of the military by the Government, and in the congratulations extended to the transport workers upon the result of their previous strike. Neither the prominent leaders, nor the Standing Orders Committee, nor the assembled delegates, appeared desirous of raising any great discussion on the matter. Doubtless there were efficient reasons for this inanition. But when Mr. Will Thorne brought forward his “hardy annual” on Secular Education, then were the delegates in their glory. In spite of the fact that at the last general election he had, according to the “Daily Chronicle,” 2.12.10, the support of ministers of religion, and that he had S.W. Ham placarded with posters announcing that he had answered the questions of the Free Church Council satisfactorily, Mr. Thorne moved his absurd resolution re the trade union education policy, and incidentally gave an opportunity (which was immediately seized) to the assembled Christians to give proof of their Christian meekness and charity by addressing one another as “cowardly hounds,” and by raising what one report calls “a perfect pandemonium” for about ten minutes.

Mr. Thorne had previously in the week distinguished himself by seconding, and speaking in favour of, a resolution advocating the establishment of a citizen army. His view appeared to be that, in some way or other, if organised Labour were armed and trained for defensive purposes—it was not quite clear whether voluntary or compulsory—the need of conscription would be obviated.

In speeches opposing the resolution it was pointed out that “Lord Roberts, General Hutchinson, and all the Service Press advocate Thome’s bill,” and that Lord Roberts had said in the hearing of a dozen or more of those present : “I don’t care whether you call the army a citizen army. Call it what you like so long as you give me authority to bring the men in and train them. I will see what they do.”

Undoubtedly a citizen army would be a very good thing—from a capitalist standpoint. It would probably make the workers stronger and more efficient wage-slaves; it would implant into them a sense of discipline and obedience to their “superiors,” which would be found very useful by their employers in the event of any industrial dispute; it would, by concentrating their minds on military training and exercises, tend to stultify at a very vital and important period of their lives, any desire they might have towards understanding and solving the various problems that affect their economic position.

It will thus be seen that in supporting a measure such as this Mr. Will Thorne is only doing what might have been expected of him—that is, furthering the continuance of the present social system.

There were other incidents and interludes during the week, notably one interlude wherein Mr. Ben Tillett and another “fraternal delegate” came to blows over a “black-leg” trade union which had, apparently, been formed in opposition to one in which Mr. Tillett happened to be interested.

Sufficient evidence has, however, been given and sufficient conclusions drawn, to show how trade unionism, as exemplified by the proceedings at the Trade Union Congress, actually stands. The reports of the meeting show, with what dignity and mastery the various subjects were tackled by the chosen delegates of the trade unionists.

Mr. David Shackleton and the other advisers to the Home Office and Board of Trade will be able to carry to their Departments gratifying reports of the proceedings. And, one thinks, the Liberal Ministers, on hearing or reading these reports, will wonder how they could ever have thought it necessary to bring military coercion to bear upon the workers during the recent strikes, when there were, all the time, such serviceable exponents of confusion and puerilities as the trade union leaders and officials, who could surely have been depended upon to keep in hand such of their followers as dared to evince a tendency to disturb the even tenour of Liberal reform legislation.

F. J. Webb

Should the Capitalists support Trade Unionism? (1911)

From the October 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Trade Unions do not pretend to be revolutionary organisations. They accept the capitalist system as part and parcel of this happy cosmos, and consider their function to be simply that of haggling with the master class about the price of their members’ labour-power. But even this limited work they do badly—the heads of the unions preferring soft jobs under the State to the grim work of bargaining with powerful monopolies.

Now a change has taken place of late in the attitude of employers towards trade unionism. Half a century ago their attitude was one of relentless enmity, but now the far-seeing and intelligent employers adopt a friendly tone towards the unions. Radical journals such as the “Manchester Guardian,” often point out that it is just in those, trades where the most powerful unions exist that we find the least friction ‘twixt master and men, and that it is amongst the casual and “unskilled” workers, badly organised, that the class struggle is waged the fiercest. Whether this charge be true or not, such a position, when taken up by capitalist organs, deserves examination.

Cute and underground methods were not used by the capitalists a hundred years ago. Workers who had the audacity to fight for higher wages by combination were handled in ways drastic and open. Take, for instance, the following extract from the “Observer” of a hundred years ago:

“Yesterday at Guildhall, John Stanley, Joseph Jeffery, Thomas Brean, and Thomas Brent, journeymen bootmakers, in the employment of Mr. Hale, of Fleet Street, were charged before Mr. Alderman Scholey and Mr. Alderman Maguay with conspiring to raise the price of wages. . . . The magistrates sentenced them to be confined in Newgate for two months each. Two others escaped on a point of law.”

According to the law at this time, any breach of contract on the employer’s part was a civil offence, on the part of the employee it was a crime. The Act of 1871 was hostile to the workers, and picketing was illegal. But much water has flowed under bridges since 1871, and there are signs that a new generation of employers look with not unkindly eyes upon trade unions.

In the early part of the 19th. century trade unionism was associated with Owenism, and the idea was wide-spread of a single trade union for all the workers in the country. But later a “New Model” of trade unionism sprang up. To quote Meredith’s “Economic History of England,” its “characteristics were the accumulation of large funds which might be employed either for general benefit purposes or, in case of need, as strike pay, the employment of a permanent, salaried executive to advise and carry out its policy, concentration of attention in the case of each union on the interest of the particular trade in which it was formed, and the absence of interest qua union in any social problems which had not a direct bearing on the wage contract in the trade concerned.”

It is towards this “New Model” of trade unionism that employers are looking with a winning smile; it is this unionism that they are watching with feelings of thankfulness. To again quote Meredith (who, writing from a bourgeois point of view, is especially valuable) :

“Down to the great Parliamentary struggle between 1867 and 1876, the opinion of employers in almost all industries was intensely hostile to collective bargaining. There were few who recognised a moral right of combination ; still fewer who believed that the exercise of the right was in the true interest of their employees, and a mere handful who saw in it a socially beneficient force. In the last thirty years a considerable change has occurred. In most industries where the system has long been established, a large minority of employers hold all the views indicated above, and a certain percentage maintain that unionism, in the long run, promotes the interest even of the employer. Especially in large-scale businesses many employers find in the organisation of their wage-earners a useful check upon the integrity of their foremen and departmental managers, and a conveniently impersonal way of bringing pressure to bear upon dishonest or idle wage-earners. Further, the employer who relies for his profits upon skill in organising his business, and marketing his output, is protected by the existence of a union against the competition of those who, whilst inferior to himself in these respects, excel him in the will or power to beat down the standard conditions and wages of the trade. Above all, the existence of a strong organisation makes it possible in a great measure to settle the general terms upon which labour shall be employed for long periods. The employer is set free from the risk of constant minor stoppages and disputes, and can concentrate his attention for months, or even years, at a time on other problems.”

In the “Shoe and Leather Record” of August 25th. appeared a remarkable proposal, a curious gem to find in the capitalist Press. After an appeal for Industrial Arbitration the editor said: 

“Those men who are already organised may be expected to stand up for their rights. Those who are not organised have few friends, and so it is with organised labour that we have to deal, at any rate in the first place. The first thing to do seems to be to so arrange matters as to give the unions an advantage over unorganised labour. As things stand, any advantage which the law gives is in favour either of the unorganised or the disorganised. It would be easy to enact that the advantages of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906 should only apply to organised labour—that is to trade unions. For example, Section 2 of that Act might be altered so as to read that ‘it shall be lawful for one or more persons acting on behalf of a trade union,’ etc., to do such and such things in relation to what is facetiously known as ‘peaceful picketing.’ At present the Section says that picketing may be conducted by ‘one or more persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union.’ The words printed in italics could be erased from the statute book and other words consequential thereto inserted without exacting the antagonism of organised labour, and probably with the active approval of the Labour Party. The effect of this single alteration of the law would be to compel labour to organise or to lose the advantage of the Trades Disputes Act. And without organisation compulsory arbitration is a vain thing, because unless both employers and employed can be represented in a responsible manner before the tribunal it would be useless to consider complaints.”

“To compel labour to organise“. This phrase is truly an indication that capitalists have changed their attitude towards trade unionism. It is support of the view that the unions are reactionary organisations ; that bodies of lackadaisical men bossed by leaders with the gift of the gab and an inordinate ambition, are pleasing phenomena to capitalists, especially when these capitalists, by virtue of their being “The State,” can offer the men’s leaders soft emolument and tempting pensions. Capitalists are aware that arbitration, conciliation, and all the remaining fakes, are only applicable to those industries where trade union “leaders” can boss and bully non-thinking herds of workers.

The proposal of that “friend” of Labour, Mr. Will Crooks, is one more example of the dangers run by the workers in tolerating orthodox trade unionism. A Labour Disputes Bill has been concocted, backed by him and other Labour M.P.s. This bill proposes that in the case of a trade union and the employers agreeing on a Conciliation Board, any employee refusing to abide by that decision by “going on strike” will be liable to a fine of not less than £2 nor more than £10 for each day or part of a day. Such is the treachery of men who have reached fame and fortune on the backs of the wretched English proletariat.

This is the naked truth. The worker is to be “cribbed, cabined, and confined” in iron-bonnd trade unions, hedged around with conciliation, arbitration, “local and central boards,” and the like. Surrounded by such local threats he is to lose the right to strike, lose the miserable claim that even under capitalism he should be able to take advantage of economic conditions when selling his only possession—his labour-power, an advantage possessed by the owner of any any other commodity.

Yes, the men who propose to put English wage-slaves, during the whole of their working life, still more in the power of the tenacious tenacles of the capitalist these men are their own leaders ! What wonder, then, that capitalists beam on trade unionism ? Is it matter for surprise that they propose compulsory membership of a trade union to be the lot of the workers ? Remember the quotation before cited : “Above all the existence of a strong organisation makes it possible in a great measure to settle the general terms upon which labour shall be employed for long periods.” Workers, it is for you to say that you will no longer be “employed” or “sold” at the dictates of those who pose as your leaders, but who are, in reality, the most valued servants of the capitalists.

John A. Dawson

50 Years Ago: Proposal to abolish strikes (1961)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the recent Trades Union Congress. . . a resolution was moved on the Friday severely condemning the Bill introduced into Parliament by Mr. Will Crooks to end industrial disputes. . .

Briefly, it is a bill that seeks to abolish strikes altogether. It lays it down that employers and employees should give at least thirty days’ notice of an intended change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages and hours; that it shall be unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a lock-out, or for any employee to go on strike on account of any dispute before or during a reference of such a dispute to a board of conciliation and investigation, any employer declaring or causing a lockout being liable to a fine of not less than £20 nor more than £200 for each day or part of a day that such lock-out exists, and any employee going on strike being liable to a fine of not less than £2 nor more than £10 per day. (Why didn’t Mr. Crooks make the employees’ fine £100 or £1,000 per day while he was about it? The modesty of the bill in only claiming £10 per day from a man who is probably striking for a living wage is distinctly rich.)

A further clause in the bill declares that any person who incites, encourages, or aids in any manner any employer to declare and continue a lock-out, or any employee to go or continue on strike, shall be liable to a fine of not less than £10 nor more than £200.

[From the article, The Trade Union Congress, by F. J. Webb, Socialist Standard, October 1911.]

[Other Labour M.P.’s who supported the Bill, which was not passed, were Henderson, Barnes, Fenwick and Enoch Edwards; the last-named said it was “inadvertently” as he gave his name without reading the Bill and did not approve of it. The T.U.C. resolution of condemnation wits passed unanimously.]

“Labour’s” tragic triumph in Australia. (1911)

From the August 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Labour” Prime Ministers and “Labour” leaders of Australia have been prominent in Great Britain of late, owing to the Imperial Conference and the Coronation. They have fraternised with the Lords of Capitalism and rejoiced at the progress of the “greatest Empire (read vampire) the world has ever seen.” All the enemies of Labour have gathered together to do honour to “these men who have risen from the plough.” Amidst the eulogies of Asquith, Balfour, and the rest of the holy capitalist family, they have toured the country urging the propertyless wage slaves to emigrate to the scene of “Labour’s triumphs,” and so escape from the suffering they encounter here.

 

The fact that a “Labour” Party controls the “Commonwealth,” and is supreme in at least two States, has misled some into following their advice. But these unfortunate workers will have a rude and rapid awakening.

 

The Labour Government in the Australian Privatewealth have a platform which includes the conversion of trusts into State monopolies. Already in the Antipodes, although the population is sparse and the land to a great extent uncultivated, the great industries and services are becoming trustified. That is eloquent of the speed with which the newer lands ore influenced by developments in the old.

The State ownership of such services as are already nationalised has been a mixed blessing to the toilers. New South Wales is the State of Labourism’s greatest advance, yet the capital (Sydney) will be remembered as the centre of the great strike of State employed tramway men for “a living wage.”  State ownership is the refuge of the business men being crushed by the trusts.

 

“A White Australia” is another plank in the Labour platform. They have always had a particular preference for “White Slavery” as opposed to other hues. Yet a “White Australia” hasn’t saved the workers from the ills that affect them in “open door” countries. Sydney, for instance, boasts of slums as hideous as the classic ones of the East End of London. The homeworkers of Sydney are a frightful example of how capitalism crushes women, as well as men, “in the land beyond the seas.”

Employment in “White Australia” is precarious. The "Sydney Daily Telegraph" of May 26 contains the following news:

 “Mr. A Rickard, of Messrs. Arthur Rickard & Co., admits he received a surprise yesterday morning. He advertised for forty-one general labourers in the Telegraph, and before noon he had several hundred applicants. When the office opened at nine o’clock there were dozens waiting and the number increased rapidly; they ran over the premises inside and jammed the door outside. Judging the men as a whole they were of the average hard-working type, and were mostly eager to accept the offered 8s. a day. We engaged 59 men and could have had as many more had we wanted them.”

 This in a country where the cost of living is more than double that in Britain, and where the rise in prices in the last decade bas been phenomenal and is still advancing.

 

The Taxation of Land Values is a prominent feature of the Labour programme. Its existence in the Commonwealth has led to it being boomed here, and in view of Australia being the pet example of the “good” effects of land taxes, it would be well to show their real character and influence.

The great merit of land taxes is said to be the releasing of the land and bringing it within the means of the poor man. But the Labour Premier, Mr. Andrew Fisher, told a deputation from the London Chamber of Commerce that “land sold at prices quite as high as, if not higher than, those realised before the tax was passed,” and the report (Manchester Guardian, 14.6.11) goes on to say that “he asserted that since the tax was passed Australian credit had been higher than for many years before.” In face of the criticism of land financiers he “denied that the tax was intended to he vindictive against anybody.” Plaintively he asked: “Could anything be more offensive than to charge his Government with class legislation?”

 

Whether offensive or not, it is but true to charge them with legislation benefiting the capitalist class. Their tax on land values been warmly welcomed by the merchants and store keepers of Australia (for it means a reduction of taxation to them), whilst the capitalist nature of their rule has been shown to all by their institution of compulsory military service to protect the property of Australian plutocrats from seizure by other nations. Conscription! How well it makes for the liberty of the worker in the “land of the free”! Liberty for the employer but continued slavery for the employed – that is the guiding principle of the Labour policy.

The brutal attitude they adopt towards workmen on strike is an instance of this. The Labour Party have control of the State legislature in S. Australia, and they have had many opportunities to show how they stand toward struggling Labour. At the present time down at Renmark, in the agricultural portion of the State, a fight is being waged by the fruit pickers in the endeavour to make their wages cover the increased cost of living. They have been met with the most bitter opposition of the Growers’ Association – the organisation of the masters. The Government have helped the blacklegs and sent down armed police to protect them. The Adelaide Advertiser published an interview on May 11 with Mr. Verran, the Labour Premier, who said: “There is no doubt whatever about the policy of our Government regarding industrial disputes. We stand straight for Compulsory Arbitration. We have no sympathy with Unions that profess a revolutionary tactical policy. Labour in our State has said the strike is a barbarous, out-of-date method of deciding differences between employers and employees”.

 

“Then what are you going to do to prevent trouble like that being experienced at Renmark just now?” he was asked.

 

“Unfortunately we have no power now,” was the reply. “But since the Federal Referenda have decided that local disputes are to be a State matter, my Government has decided to introduce a Compulsory Arbitration Bill. The principal provision of the measure will be to make every union and every association of employers register under the new law, and the Wages Board’s decision must bet be observed, just as any other law is abided by. Once the two Houses of Parliament say all industrial disputes must be decided by law the striker will be treated as any other law breaker.”

“What about the Right to Strike?” “There is no Right to Strike recognised,” said Mr. Verran. “When a Labour Government is in power it is just as necessary to have law and order observed as at any other time.”

“Then why does not your Government prevent lawlessness at Renmark?”

“We have taken every precaution to see that the law as we find it is carried out. It is not true that we hesitated regarding action at Renmark. The police authorities there have not asked for additional help. Indeed, they have reported that the police are sufficient to cope with any trouble. In spite of that, when we heard that there was likely to be something special happening there on a certain date, we sent two additional mounted police to Renmark. We do not fear any legitimate unionism, but the leaders in the Renmark strike are men with revolutionary intentions, who make no secret of their opposition to Labour. We have no necessity to pander to them in any way and we attack them openly. This class of opposition causes us no embarrassment.”

In the same paper Mr. J. Murphy, the men’s union organiser, says: “The police action is the result of bias against the workers. Ever since the Hon. J. P. Wilson  (Labour Minister) took up his well-known attitude against the workers and the Hon. C. Vaughan (Labour Treasurer) backed him up, the Growers (masters) and ‘scabs’ have been very aggressive, as they know the Government are behind them.” Speaking of the suppression of the men’s meetings he said: “Our men are prepared to continue holding meetings of protest there against what we regard as the Russian tyranny of the Labour Government over this Free Speech question.”

The employers’ representative (Mr. R. Young), interviewed, said: “In future the employers’ association will not employ any but non-union men or free labourers, as they are called. It appears to me that the Growers can get plenty of non unionist hands. My impression is that the Renmark Growers will always win, as they have won three times already, easily beating all opposition.”

The damning indictment of Labourism these facts contain should make the workers ponder over the actions of the British Labour Party. The latter’s praise of their Australian colleagues, in spite of their open hostility to struggling toilers, is but another of their many crimes. The workers of Australia are in the same abject condition that the English toilers stood in in the time of the Tolpuddle martyrs – the days before the Combination Acts.

The Labour Parliament offer the workers Compulsory Arbitration – a method by which the capitalist arbitrator lets the wage-slaves down every time. Compulsory Arbitration is such an overt fraud that the miners of Broken Hill and Newcastle (Australia) suffered imprisonment rather than agree to it.

The lesson for the working class is well pointed by these facts. They can hope for little while means of living are owned by the capitalist class and controlled by their henchmen, “Labour” or otherwise. At the 1911 Annual Conference of the Political Labour Leagues of New South Wales Mr. Verran (who attended) voiced the following sentiment :

“They must be exceedingly careful not to be intoxicated by their own success, and to remember that they were pledged to carry on the same social order as had developed up to the present time”.

A. Cleveland

A new social revolution (1945)

From the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Faulty reasoning and as a result faulty conclusions are very often due to the lack of consideration of vital factors involved. Proposals, for instance, are often made by various would-be-reformers to improve the lot of the workers whilst retaining the present economic set-up, that is the capitalist system. Bearing upon this it is worth while considering an article written by a reformer of longstanding, Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree which appeared in the "Evening Standard,” (February 20th, 1945), headed, “A New Industrial Revolution.”

We are told that if the aim of the Government as regards “the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment after the War is achieved it will revolutionise the status of the workers.” May we quickly add that if the aforesaid does occur it will also revolutionise the ideas that Socialists hold on capitalism, but since we are aware of the fact that the only time our masters seem to be able to keep all of us busy is in the preparation or in the actual waging of war we are quite confident that Socialists will need to make no changes of their ideas now that the slaughter has abated. The fact of the matter is that the only way the status of the workers can be revolutionised is by the abolition of capitalism. No such proposition is made by Mr. Rowntree.

The proposals that are elaborated are based on the contingency that “if a state of full-employment is stabilised, authority, based on the ability to dismiss employees will largely disappear.” Mr. Rowntree need not have gone to the trouble of racking his brain as to how to deal with this question. The Socialist assures him that this ticklish problem will not arise in peacetime, and that our masters’ authority to employ or dismiss us at his beck and call will remain unaffected. On the contrary, all the things point to the strengthening of his hand. However, let us pause for a moment to consider how the above assertion of the employer's freedom to employ or dismiss is contradicted, in almost the next breath. Apparently, it seems, that now the owner is not the authority any more. “As a matter of fact all those employed in industry are SERVANTS OF THE CONSUMERS. It is the consumers who give the orders, and the greatest industrial magnates must obey them if he wants to stay in business. So the master and servant relationship within an industrial enterprise is unrealistic.” Following from this one is inclined to suggest that employers should now unite to resist the encroachments of their common enemy, the consumer! This childish argument is based on the fallacy of ignoring the fact that the producers, that is the working-class, are at the same time the vast majority of the consumers and secondly, that they have by no means that independence of choice which Mr. Rowntree is too hasty in crediting them with. How many of us for instance would consume our daily “sausage and mash” at the factory canteen or local cafe if we could but take a stroll down to Claridges or the Dorchester and there exercise a freer and far more welcome independence of choice? Further, has Mr. Rowntree forgotten the extent to which our own tastes are artificially formed for us, and therefore restricted, by constant plugging and advertisement. For the vast majority of consumers, i.e., the workers, the ability to pick and choose between one product and another is largely nonexistent. They have to buy what the big monopolies have decided to produce and have to like it, for the simple reason that they cannot afford to do anything else. Freedom of choice is restricted to the rich consumers and that invariably means luxuries which workers never can enjoy so long as capitalism lasts.

As a result of his fallacious idea that the consumers are the real masters in society, Mr. Rowntree comes to the conclusion that “employers should regard themselves and all their employees as being fellow-servants.” That says he, “is their true relationship.” We are told that some employers would resent this suggestion. May we inform Mr. Rowntree that there are quite a lot of workers who would resent this equally as much. The cold fact of reality is that the production and distribution services under capitalism are incidental to the making of profits. And since the making of profits involves the exploitation of the workers we should like to know how the receivers of profit, i.e., the employers can be the “fellow-servants” of those who produce it for them.

Further we discover that Mr. Rowntree wishes to introduce a greater degree of democracy into industry. He proposes that (a) arbitration boards be set up to deal with breaches of factory rule and (b) to establish Works Councils “on which members of the administrative staff and representatives elected by the workers should serve.” His reasons for desiring these proposals to be put into effect are not hard to discover. According to Mr. Rowntree it “would remove the chance of a strike occurring where the workers consider that a worker has been wrongfully punished.” Workers, so we are led to believe, would “feel that they are part of the show.” Employers could confidently expect a good and a growing response front the workers and of course it would mean “Prosperity for industry.” As regards the latter slogan let it be once again emphasized that prosperity for industry means the OWNERS of industry. We note too, that the workers will only be allowed to “feel” part of the show; they will only be “treated” as co-partners. This vague language is not a strange one to our apologists for capitalism. Even if the proposal mentioned were put into effect the enslaved position of the working class would not be altered in the slightest. It is extremely doubtful even that they could possibly serve the interests of the workers in their daily struggle against their profit-hunting masters, if we are to judge by the biased behaviour of the war time arbitration boards. Most likely they would prove a very effective instrument in the hands of the capitalist class to perpetuate their system of exploitation. Remember well that in the war despite “full-employment,” arbitration boards and factory committees, strikes and industrial unrest have been very prevalent and peace and harmony have not been produced in industry. This must necessarily be so because the conflict of interests between master and slave, in this case capitalist and wage-slave, is irreconcilable, in war or out of war. Since Mr Rowntree seems to be very concerned with actualities let the Socialist Party inform him that as long as industry is monopolised by a small section of the population who use it as a source for their profit and power so long will peace and harmony of effort be an unrealisable fantasy. May we further suggest that there was no need of him to dwell upon the desirability of a “new industrial revolution.” This revolution has already been accomplished in the course of the last 150 years. What is urgently required, however, is a new social revolution, the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. This would place into the hands of the whole community the ownership and control of the instruments of production and distribution. The degradation and humiliation of wage-slavery would then be a thing of the past.

Max Judd

Should the workers strike? (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The final arbiter in any dispute is force. When arguments fail, when negotiations reach deadlock, when all forms of diplomacy and compromise are exhausted, then force is the only means of ensuring the victory of one disputant over the other. When this stage is reached in disputes between nations, the diplomats are recalled and the generals take the field. It is in preparation for this that governments store armaments and maintain armed forces. When this stage is reached in disputes, between workers and their employers, the negotiators step back and the strike committee comes to the fore. It is in readiness for this eventuality that the workers must preserve the right to strike.

When workers resort to strike action it is an indication that the negotiators of their Trade Unions have failed. It indicates that either negotiations have been so protracted that the workers have lost patience or else that the negotiators have been unable to achieve anything satisfactory to the Union members. In either instance the Trade Union chiefs who are responsible for the negotiations, unless they can provide adequate reasons and excuses for their failure, lose prestige in the eyes of the members. They are not usually lacking in explanations why it was not possible to achieve success. They object to their Union members taking matters into their own hands and using force because then they are discredited in eyes of the government and the employers. They protest at the melting away of the Union funds and seldom give their sanction to qualify a strike as official. When the Union leaders have arrived at an agreement with employers and have signed a contract covering the wages and conditions of employment of the members of their respective Unions, they want that contract to be honoured by the members. If the members will not accept, the leaders find themselves between a rebellious following on the one hand and distrustful employers on the other. It must be very disconcerting for these dealers in labour power en masse, having bargained for its price and arranged for the conditions of its delivery, to find it continually heading up the wrong street. If they can find a way to stop that, they will.

At the Trades Union Congress held at Bridlington during September this year, the question of unofficial strike action was discussed, as it had been on previous years. There were threats to use union discipline against those who promote, organise and lead unofficial strikes, and accusations against those who advocate and engage in them. Sir Will Lawther, better known as Will Lawther, president of the National Union of Mineworkers and president of this year’s Trades Union Congress, had a few things to say. He is not alone in the ideas that he expressed, but in his presidential address he put them into words that sum up the attitude of many prominent Trade Union leaders. Speaking about unofficial strikes, Mr. Lawther said that the strike,

". . . has been, in days gone by, the strongest weapon in the Trade Union armoury when it has been wielded under Trade Union authority for clearly defined industrial purposes.

Trade Unions have been forced to use the strike weapon when there was no other way open for them to redress their wrongs.”—(Daily Herald, Sept. 6th. 1949.) 

We can anticipate from this statement by Mr. Lawther, that he considers the strike weapon out of date, that there is now, in his estimation, some stronger weapon in the armoury, some more effective way open for the workers to redress their wrongs. There must also be a reason why Mr. Lawther thinks that strikes were the strongest weapon and are not necessarily so now. He gives it to us.

“We can go on in the old way. treating every difficulty that arises in industry as the manifestation of an irreconcilable conflict of interest between the employer and the employed; or we can recognise that the attainment of political democracy in this land leads on to the fulfilment of industrial democracy.”—(Daily Herald, Sept. 6th. 1949.)

So, according to Mr. Lawther, there are two ways in which the workers can tackle their problems; the old way, based on a recognition of the class struggle, or this new way that leads on to the fulfilment of industrial democracy, whatever that may be. We can assume that Mr. Lawther considers “the old way ” as outmoded as the strike weapon.

The arguments put forward by Mr. Lawther and other Trade Union chiefs are based on the conception that industry is run for the benefit of the whole community in each national state; that the workers are a section of this community and their interests are sectional interests must be subject to the national interest. Strikes, according to this conception, become an attempt by a section to impose its will upon the whole community. They are decried as a type of blackmail. They interfere with the smooth running of the community’s industry and must be “outlawed”. This is the line of reasoning of many Trade Union leaders, in high and lowly positions, and, unfortunately, accepted by many workers. Disputes, they, argue, must be settled by negotiation and arbitration.

But is the “old way” referred to by Mr. Lawther, really out of date? What is the relation between the worker and his employer? Is that relation different in a “political democracy” to that in other places? Has this relation undergone any change since “the days gone by”? An answer to these questions will solve the problem that besets many Trade Unionists to-day—“To strike or to arbitrate?”

Before the necessities of life can be produced, three essentials must be available; materials provided by nature, worked up into what we call raw materials; tools and machinery, which we name the instruments of production; and human labour effort which must be applied to the nature-given materials through the instruments of production in order to produce the consumable product. The workers do not own either the materials, or the instruments of production. They have only the human labour effort contained in their bodies. The other two essentials are owned by that smaller section of the community known as the capitalist class. In fact, it is this ownership that constitutes them a class distinct from the non-owning workers. The materials and the instruments of production are useless to the capitalists unless the labour effort of the workers can be engaged to operate them. On the other hand, the labour effort of the worker is useless to him unless he can have access to the tools and machinery and the materials. Those who own machinery, mines, land, factories, workshops, etc., seek to buy the energies of the workers who, in their turn, are anxious to sell in order that they may live. The relation of employer and employed is really one of buyer and seller of human labour effort. The employer does not buy the labourer, that would be chattel slavery. Neither does he buy the labour, that is the application of the workers’ energies to the materials. The capitalist already has the material and the worker does not own any, so he cannot offer it. He can only offer his ability to labour, his physical and mental energies. That is what the employer buys, by the hour, day, week or contract. When the specified amount of energy, measured in terms of time, has been extracted, the worker is free to go his way and spend his wages, which are the price he gets for the energy that he sells He must of necessity spend them on replacing the energy he has expended.

Is this position any different in what Mr. Lawther terms a “Political Democracy”? Do the workers receive a share in the ownership of the materials and the instruments of production? Obviously not! They are still employees, having no other means of obtaining a livelihood except by selling their labour power. Their status is not altered by the fact that they have universal suffrage or by the introduction of State ownership. If they find employment in a nationalised industry, it merely means that the State buys their labour power and pays for it with a wage as does any private employer or business concern. The wealth produced belongs to the State, not to the workers who produce it. The workers in State controlled industries can only get back as much of the wealth produced by their class as their wages will buy. The relation between the State as an employer and the workers that it employs is the same as between a private employer and his workers. That the workers have a voice in deciding which political party shall operate the State machinery' does not alter their position either.

Neither has there been any fundamental change in the relation between the workers and their masters since wage labour and capital first emerged as factors determining the mode of production. The working class has always been, and still is, that section of the community that, owning none of the means of production, must sell its mental and physical energies in order to live.

Capital is a concentrated social force, but the worker has only his individual working force. If he would make effective demands upon the force that is capital, he must combine with his fellows to create am opposing force. For that purpose Trade Unions were formed. The position has become one where a body of workers, organised in a Trade Union, bargain over the price and condition of sale of their labour power. If they cannot get the price and conditions they require, they refuse to sell. Such a refusal is known as a strike. Some matters can be settled by negotiation without resort to the strike weapon, but, let it once be known that the workers are not prepared to use the only forceful means in their power, and they will be permanently on the losing side at the negotiating table. If any man who has something to sell lets it be known that he will not refuse to sell it at any price that is offered, he will get the worst of every bargain.

During the last war, in an effort to eliminate strikes, the Government introduced the Employment and National Arbitration Order, known as Order No. 1305. This made arbitration compulsory and the decisions of the Arbitration Tribunals that were set up were legally binding on both workers and employers. The order came into force in 1940 and still operates. It makes strikes and lockouts illegal unless 21 days notice of an impending dispute has been given to the Minister of Labour and he has failed to intervene. Many Trade Unionists now consider that this order is a hindrance to the furtherance of their demands, and wish to see it terminated. Mr. Clem Bundock of the National Union of Journalists, speaking at the Trades Union Congress, put the case simply. He said, 

“Some Unions—and I fancy a growing number— have emerged from the tribunal with nothing for their members but frustration.”—(Daily Herald, Sept. 8th, 1949.) 

Mr. Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, has a different view. He says, referring to Order No. 1305 that it is

“. . . the best weapon that the Trade Union Movement has got.”—(The Record. August. 1949.)

If the National Arbitration Tribunals were composed of men who saw the relationship between employers and employed as we have outlined it, who were sympathetic to the workers and whose decisions were still legally binding on both workers and employers, then, maybe, Mr. Deakin would have a case. But the men who are appointed to these tribunals view the problems brought before them from the same “community of national interest” angle as Mr. Lawther, and Mr. Deakin. The nation is a capitalist one, which means that they view all the problems from the standpoint of the interests of capital, not of the workers, except that the workers are necessary to capita] as the source of labour power. The Tribunals are influenced by consideration for selling goods cheaply in foreign markets, ensuring that industry “pays,” and all the other problems of capitalists. If these tribunals continue to function, the workers can be sure that they will be used, not only to frustrate them, but to worsen their wages and working conditions, either by enforcing wage reductions, extending working hours, or pegging wages down whilst prices rise. If the workers surrender their right to strike in favour of this “best weapon,” then, to use a popular phrase, “They’ve had it."

The strike weapon is double edged. It often brings suffering to the workers whilst only inconveniencing the employer. If other means, less harmful to the workers than strike action, but effective in securing satisfaction for working class demands, are available, they should certainly be used. The history of our class teaches us that there are no other effective means which are not backed by a preparedness to use the force of strike action.

Workers who are duped by the notion that the nationalised industries are now the property of the community and that those employed in them are servants of the community, ready to reap a reward as soon as “the country is back on its feet,” are due for a sad disillusionment. We find an example of this idea in a leaflet entitled, “For Busmen Only,” issued by the Central Bus Section of the Transport and General Workers’ Union.

"The movement has struggled for years to achieve the Nationalisation of the Industry, so that we should work for the Public and not for the benefit of shareholders. This having been achieved, it is incumbent upon us all to Rive the best service possible."

The leaflet goes on to say that you can’t get more out of a quart pot than you put into it, the implication being that the more you put in, the more you get out.

The workers in nationalised industries work for their employer, not for the customers who purchase the goods or services that they produce. If they are employed by the State they are servants of the State, not of the so-called public. And the State is not the community, it is, in brief, the executive committee of the capitalist class. Its function is to see that capitalism runs as smoothly as possible. This is usually termed “keeping law and order” or “ensuring the nation's food supply.” The State has the task of smoothing out disputes between employers and their workers, because such disputes can slow down the flow of profit to the capitalist class. Trade Union leaders like Lawther, Deakin, Tewson and others are drawn into assisting in this smoothing out process. The National Arbitration Tribunals have partially served that purpose, but workers are now getting wary of them.

The worker who urges his fellows to strike on any and every occasion is as dangerous as the “peace-at-any-price” advocate. There are times when it is obvious that a strike is doomed to failure from the start. At such times it is contrary to working class interests to advocate strike action. There are times when it may be possible to secure something satisfactory through negotiation. At such times it would be folly to fritter away working class enthusiasm and funds in a strike. But once let the workers say “We won't strike,” and they place themselves completely at the mercy of their masters who will not be slow to profit by such docility.

The class struggle goes on. It does not.cease when an industry passes under State control. We do not have the spectacle of a class struggle for some workers who are still privately employed whilst those employed by the State are immune. The State behaves like every other employer, as workers in State controlled industries have discovered.

Yes, the class struggle goes on, and every weapon in the workers’ armoury must be kept sharp and ready for use. The strike weapon is not out of date. Maybe, the lessons of years of working class struggle may show how it can be used more effectively and with less harm to the workers who use it, but it must never be discarded whilst wage labour and capital confront one another.

W. Waters.

Editorial: The Fruit of "Victory." (1912)

Editorial from the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month comment was made in these columns on the permission by the miners’ leaders of the men to return to work too early, as well as on the impossibility of the “impartial” chairman being impartial. Within the short span of a month both points of criticism are borne out by the development of events.

Lord St Aldwyn, better known when Tory Chancellor as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, was the “impartial” chairman for the South Welsh District Board set up by the Bill that settled the recent coal strike. He is reported by the miners’ leader, Mr. C. B. Stanton, to have surrendered the men to the coal owners.

Says Mr. Stanton : “Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, Sir. E. Grey and others, told our National Executive they considered 5s. per day very reasonable for any man who worked in the mine as a minimum wage. Lord St. Aldwyn has given us a 3s. minimum. This is not a living wage, but a measly, wretched surrender to the Welsh coal-owners, whose profits, greed, and obstinacy at all times are notorious. How any man could, upon the evidence, give such a verdict I cannot understand.”

But Mr. Stanton ought to know that the “independent” chairman, even with the collusion of the Government as he suggests, is quite capable of betraying the men and converting a promised increase of wages into a decrease. When did Mr. Stanton put any value upon a Liberal promise to the workers, or trust the “ impartiality ” of a Tory politician ? Why, exactly when it was least justified— when the strike had driven the master class and the political wire-pullers, Liberal and Tory alike, to an extremity.

It was easy for the Liberals to premise the “5 and 2” and to sympathise with the men in their “reasonable” demands. And very convenient to leave to the “impartiality” of a retired Tory politician, the execution of the premise.

Says Mr. Stanton further: “ The rank and file know where the mistake was made before ; we shall not repeat that mistake again.” But it seems to us that the mistake need never have been made at all. Mr. Stanton was among the leaders who advised the men to accept the Bill, with its machinery of "impartial” boards and “independent” chairmen, even against the better judgment of the men. It was the leaders who should have known what the masters and their political servants were likely to do once the men were back again at work.

We of course, can draw no satisfaction from the turn events have taken, except from the fact that in bearing out our prognostications they have given further proof of the existence of the class struggle and the solidarity of the capitalist class against the workers. Had the miners’ actions been guided by this knowledge they would not now be lamenting that they have been tricked by the masters and sold by—but the law of libel bolds us dumb.

What is wrong with arbitration? (1958)

From the July 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Politicians and newspaper writers who say that they believe in the principle of the right to strike, but who always condemn workers in this country who come out on strike, are fond of saying that strikes aren’t necessary any longer because wage claims can go to arbitration; where, so they say, the claim will receive impartial treatment. As these opponents of strikes are not at all impartial themselves their enthusiasm for arbitration is suspect to start with. But among the workers, too, especially when a strike puts them to great inconvenience, there is a widespread belief that somehow the arbitration courts are, or ought to be, a substitute for coming out on strike.

The idea is that if you have the right sort of men on the arbitration bodies, and supply them with the right sort of supporting evidence, they will argue it out and reach a " just ” solution. But who are the right sort of men and what is a “just” solution? The Tribunals usually consist of a President (with or without two other “ independent ” members), assisted by a member drawn from an employers' panel and a member drawn from a workers' panel.

The employers' and workers' members, and the independent members, no doubt, argue from their respective standpoints about the issues presented, and the award or refusal of an award is in the last resort determined by the independent members Tribunals or the President. While it is assumed that the Tribunals work on such conceptions as a "fair" wage and "what the industry can bear," these are meaningless or vague, and individuals can have their own interpretations. The Tribunals are not (though many people think they are) under specific obligation to try constantly to push wages up, or even necessarily to keep' them in line with the cost of living. Their essential purpose is to secure the settlement of disputes between employers and workers, with particular regard to the fact that if such disputes are not settled, production may be halted through strikes or lock-outs. Where it is a question of workers claiming higher wages one of the things the Tribunal is in effect considering is what price the employers will have to pay to avoid having their business (and their profits) brought to a standstill by a strike. The determination and intensity of feeling of the workers is therefore a factor in the issue.

From the organised workers' standpoint if arbitration bodies are of any use it is due to the fact that behind the workers’ claims is the readiness to strike.

In recent years most wage settlements have been made without arbitration or strikes (though often with the threat of strikes in the background), but these settlements were largely a recognition by the employers of the fact that with rising prices and little unemployment they had to pay more or lose workers to competitors.

Those who oppose all strikes deny that the strike is a necessary weapon for the workers. A case in point was the provincial busmen’s strike in July, 1957. The Unions representing the busmen (those employed by the bus companies outside London) demanded an increase of 20s. to bring them more into line with busmen's pay in London. Having been offered only 3s. they determined to strike. The Minister of Labour then referred the dispute to arbitration and the Industrial Disputes Tribunal awarded 11s. The Daily Telegraph (July 26th, 1957), which had condemned the strike, maintained that the award proved that the busmen would have got 11s. anyway, and that therefore, "the six-day strike is, and was from the first, headstrong, malicious and unnecessary." Of course, the events proved nothing of the kind. If merely stating a case were all that was required to get an 11s. increase, why did the employers refuse to offer more than 3s.? and can it be doubted that in its purpose of getting the dispute settled the members of the Tribunal had to take into account the fact that the men were so determined in their claim, that they had decided on their strike before the reference to the Tribunal, and were still engaged in it while the Tribunal considered the case?

The workers’ victory was rather a vindication of the declaration of Mr. Frank Coyle of the Transport Workers’ Union: "I stand by my previous objection to arbitration in any form.” (Daily Herald, July 17th, 1957. Mr. Coyle made this statement on hearing that the Minister had decided to refer the case to the Tribunal.)

The Rôle of the Government

But let us not get this matter out of perspective. Arbitration without the readiness to strike is a broken reed, but there are also narrow enough limits to what strikes can do. Strikes cannot always be successful in the aim of getting a wage increase or fighting off a decrease: so much depends on the state of trade and the amount of unemployment. And behind the employers is always the government, with its steady purpose of keeping capitalism going—which means keeping it on a profit-making basis. Many workers fail to see this and expect the government to remain "neutral." After seven years of Conservative government memories have grown dim about what preceded those seven years, and many workers believe that while the present government one-sidedly opposes the workers and wants to keep wages down, things were different under the Labour Government.

Not Different Under Labour Government

Things were not different under Labour Government. The same causes produced the same effects. The obligation to keep capitalism going led the Labour Government to assert the doctrine of "wage restraint," and the Tories have carried it on. The next Labour Government will do the same.

But for those who have forgotten, it was all set down in the Labour Government’s "Statement on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices" of February, 1948. Re-reading that document alongside recent declarations made by the Tories confirms Mr. MacMillan’s jibe in the House of Commons on May 8th, 1958, that the statements made by the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the late Sir Stafford Cripps, "were very similar. One might almost think they were written by the same hand."

The 1948 Statement asked individual employers not to pay wages above agreed rates; asserted that there could be no justification for a general increase of wages (or profits and interest) unless accompanied by a substantial increase in production; denied the claim of workers to have higher wages merely to keep relativity with other workers who had had an increase; declared that the Government would observe those principles in its negotiations with its own employees; urged all who were engaged in negotiations, or "decisions which might result in an increase in wages or other personal incomes" (i.e., the Arbitration Tribunals) not to depart from these principles; and stated firmly that if there was any departure, employers and the nationalised industries could not expect to call on the Government to provide the money or make it available through increased prices. (Just like the recent Government attitude to railwaymen and busmen.)

The 1948 White Paper had one clause saying that if at some future date there was a marked rise in the cost of living the level of wages, etc., would need reconsideration.

As the cost of living was rising more or less continuously the need arose soon enough, but not much more than a year later the Labour Government added another turn to the screw by announcing that there was no case for higher wages even if the cost of living did increase. This arose when the Government devalued the pound in 1949, knowing that this would raise the cost of living still further. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Sir Stafford Cripps said in the House of Commons (September 27th, 1949):-

“ Especially and specifically there can, in our view, be no justification for any section of the workers, trying to recoup themselves for any rise in the cost of living due to the altered exchange rate.”

All this time, under Labour Government and Tory Government, strikes were continued and will continue.

Those who think that the workers’ struggles over wages would cease if we had a different sort of government are deluding themselves; as also are those who think that strikes are no longer a necessary weapon of defence for the worker.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: The Cotton Dispute. (1929)

Editorial from the September 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The dispute in the cotton industry arose out of a decision by various employers’ associations to reduce wages by 12½ per cent. from July 29th. The operatives balloted on the question of accepting the reduction and decided by a large majority not to do so. Conferences arranged by the Ministry of Labour failed to secure agreement and a lock-out of nearly 500,000 operatives began on July 29th. The position of the locked-out workers was not improved by a recommendation of the Executive Council of one section, the Operative Spinners Amalgamation, in favour of accepting the principle of a reduction, the amount to be decided in course of negotiation. A delegate meeting, however, by a substantial majority refused to give its executive authority to enter into negotiations on this basis, and after 11 days the workers’ side was again united in its refusal.

On August 10th the Prime Minister intervened, and on August 15th it was announced that both sides had agreed to arbitration. Work was resumed at the old rates pending the award of the arbitrators, who were empowered to examine the merits of the employers’ demand for a reduction and determine “whether and, if so, to what extent, the employers’ claim to a reduction of wages is sustained.” (Manchester Guardian, August 16th.) Both sides pledged themselves to abide by the award. The arbitrators were five in number, including the Chairman. Two, Mr. C. T. Cramp and Mr. A. G. Walkden, were trade union officials.

The plea put forward by the masters was the usual one that trade is bad and a wage reduction would help the industry out of its depression.

Mr. Ogden, President of the Amalgamated Weavers, gives the answer. He tells how the same plea was made in 1920, and again in 1922.

“In 1920 wages were 215 on the list. I believed that a reduction of wages would help trade and give better employment. We accepted a reduction of 70 per cent. on list prices. The improvement did not materialise, but two years later the employers came to us again and asked for another 50 per cent cut. This, in all, meant a reduction of between 12s. and 15s. a week. . . .” (Daily Herald, August 1st.)

The pre-stoppage average pay of the men operatives was 47/- a week (according to the Ministry of Labour), and

“there are married men piecers in the spinning rooms who are paid as little as 25s. a week. Four-loom weavers on full time, with all their looms running, get only about £2 a week and to have full time at the mills and all looms fully working is very far indeed from the general experience in the cotton industry to-day.”—(Daily Herald, August 16th.)

Further reductions in pay will no more solve that ever-present problem of capitalism —over-production—than did the earlier ones. The Labour Party’s alternative solution is re-organisation and amalgamation with a view to increasing sales by means of cheaper and more efficient production. This means, in effect, making still more fierce the competition between Lancashire and its foreign rivals—a “remedy” which will but aggravate the disease.

There has been much mutual congratulation because arbitration was accepted and thus “reason” triumphed over “force.” It is necessary to point out, therefore, what is the real function and nature of arbitration. It is no more than a means of measuring up the strength of the opposing sides at a given moment and giving an award accordingly. Arbitration does not obviate the need for the workers to organise with a view to withholding their labour when conditions enable them, by so doing, to bring a certain pressure to bear. It does not bring peace into industry, nor supplant the struggle between those who own the machinery of production and those who operate it; nor does it materially affect the level of wages.

Professor Henry Clay, President of the Section of Economic Science of the British Association, dealt with this subject in a general way in his 1929 address. (See Times, 3rd August, 1929.) He summed up as follows :—

“Arbitration did not, because it could not, materially affect the economic factors that ultimately determine what wages can be paid; and the course of wages, as formulated by arbitration, was much the same as it would have been —with a time-lag and less uniformity —had there been no arbitration. In other words, the arbitration authorities interpreted—and interpreted with fair accuracy—forces which they could not in any case control.”

We would, in passing, commend to the operatives two things for them to ponder over. One is the fact that wage reductions are as much the order of the day when capitalism is administered by the Labour Party as at other times, and the Labour Government, like its predecessors, declines to side with the workers against the employing class.

The second is a gem from the Daily News. The Daily News wholeheartedly welcomed the setting-up of the Arbitration Board, a Board, be it remembered, whose terms of reference were to consider a reduction in wages. Four days later (20th August) its editorial contained a little sermon on revolution. It pointed out first that the British working man “is not impressed by talk of revolution.”

Then it added, with unconscious humour, “He prefers to listen to sensible talk about higher wages and better conditions.”

The award is for a reduction in pay of approximately 6¼ %, thus reducing the employer’s wages bill by £2,225,000 a year (see Daily Telegraph, 24th August). It was agreed to by all the members of the Board, including the two trade union officials.

The Board’s award will doubtless leave the British working man still preferring to listen to “sensible talk about higher wages.”

Editorial: The Printing Dispute (1959)

Editorial from the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the ordinary trade union point of view of a struggle to enforce more pay and shorter hours, the printers' strike seems to have been well conceived and executed and well timed.

The claim was for a 10 per cent. increase of pay and a reduction of 3½ hours, from 43½ to 40. After lengthy negotiations the employers offered 2½ per cent. and 1 hour, but tied up the offer with a long list of demands for the reorganisation of the industry to increase production. The Unions rejected this offer and rejected also the employers manoeuvre of trying to get them to take the claim to arbitration. Having taken a ballot of their members the printing unions came out on strike on June 17th, over 100,000 men and women being involved. The dispute affected the Newspaper Society and the British Federation of Master Printers, but not the Newspaper Proprietors' Association or the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society, so while the Provincial newspapers, the magazines and periodicals and general printers were brought to a standstill the national and Sunday papers and London evening papers carried on, as did a certain number of firms which accepted the Unions' demands. A second dispute affecting printing ink threatened to stop the other papers, but this was avoided.

The timing was favourable for the workers because trade was recovering from the depression, unemployment was falling and the imminence of a general election made the employers, the Government and the big political parties worried lest a long-drawn out strike should hold up the very big volume of literature of various kinds needed for the election.

In the third week of the strike, discussions started under the chairmanship of Lord Birkett. Towards the end of July, at our time of going to press, the employers made an improved offer, of 3½ per cent. increase of pay, and a reduction of 1½ hours. The unions rejected this. They considered that the substantial concessions they were prepared to make to make to increase productivity justified more than 3½ per cent. on pay and at least an undertaking of a further reduction of hours at a later date. Settlement was then Expected at 4½ per cent. proposed by Lord Birkett.

The Sanctimonious “Guardian”

The dispute produced several surprising, diverting and instructive incidents. As was to be expected the Manchester Guardian led the Press in its sanctimonious comment of June 13th, laying down the usual employers' line that everyone believes in the right of the workers to strike so long as they never exercise the right:

The right to strike is a fundamental human freedom, but its exercise ought to be justified by some great cause. There is no great cause in the printing dispute—it is a piece of market bargaining over money.

Can anyone remember the Manchester Guardian ever supporting a strike (except a strike of foreign workers)? The Guardian editor’s further remark was equally hypocritical.

In the nineteenth century, when Britain had few industrial rivals, and when the main domestic industries had well-hedged fields to themselves, a strike or lock-out did not matter much, except in terms of personal suffering.

If some diligent student were to study the Guardian’s attitude to strikes in the nineteenth century, we do not doubt that he would find that the Guardian always managed to find overwhelming reasons for condemning those strikers too.

Lord Sourgrapes

It might have been expected that the newspapers that continued to be published would have solidly defended the employers, though Labour Party supporters doubtless hoped that their two mouthpieces, the official Daily Herald and the unofficial Daily Mirror, would line up with the workers against the employers. It turned out otherwise and some of the liveliest abuse during the strike was to be found in a fierce battle between the Daily Express and the other two. Beaverbrook’s Daily Express roundly accused the big magazine combines of having precipitated an unnecessary strike by their "tough and unaccommodating attitude," and said (4th July) that the provincial newspapers were the “victims of the tycoons of the magazine trade. They are paying a heavy price for their association with these richer more powerful and more belligerent allies." The biggest printing union, NATSOPA, promptly endorsed the charge. The Mirror and. Odhams (the latter owns the People and the Herald) are the “magazine tycoons" referred to, and they angrily denied the accusation. The Mirror of July 6th, in a slashing leader headed “ Lord Sourgrapes—and the drop of poison," explained that Beaverbrook has no magazines except “a couple of inconspicuous comics," called it a “smear campaign,” and passed the buck to the smaller printing firms and smaller newspapers who feared that the Unions' demands would put them out of business. The People (July 5th) blamed the Unions for not having let the claim go to arbitration in the first place. The Herald itself tried to ride both horses. It held that the men have a good case for their original demands, but that the employers “think they have a good case for insisting on increased productivity as a condition of any wage rise" (June 19th). It tried to escape its dilemma by blaming the Government for not immediately setting up a court of inquiry, which, of course, the Unions did not want, anyway.

The “Principle” of Shorter Hours

A weakness of the trade union position (to be found in many other industries as well) is the ambiguous attitude to shorter hours. Mr. Willis, one of the Union leaders and Chairman of the T.U.C., declared at the conference of the Miners' Union that the printers were striking “in support of the principle for which every trade unionist would fight, the shorter week." (News Chronicle, July 8th.) But what are the facts? Though the standard hours are now about four less than in 1938 the actual hours worked in industry are no lower than they were then. The claims for shorter hours have turned into claims for more overtime pay. In 1946 printing hours were reduced by 1½ to 43½, but within a few years the actual average hours of male workers in the paper and printing trade were higher than they were before, and in 1957 were 47 a week.

Confusion about Arbitration and Impartiality

The trade unions are in a muddle about arbitration. The printing unions consistently opposed it on the ground that it would not be “impartial,” but later in the dispute they were asking that Lord Monckton be invited—though he declined the invitation—to preside over the negotiations “to advise, guide and control” the discussions, but not to have power to be final arbiter. Lord Monckton was for four years Tory Minister of Labour (described by the General Secretary of the railwaymen in 1955 as “a very able friend of the N.U.R.! ”) and is now chairman of the Midland Bank, which refuse; to recognise the union of bank employees! Arbitration is established by the Government to settle industrial disputes and it cannot be impartial in the sense of deciding the merits of a case on some abstract principle of humanity. No such principles are laid down for the present court or the one abolished last year. The job of the arbitrators is to find a basis on which the workers can be persuaded to carry on working and the employers can keep in business—with, as an inescapable background, the continuation of Capitalism.

To illustrate the general confusion in the trade union movement it has only to be recalled that last year the T.U.C. and many trade union leaders were deriding the Government for abolishing the arbitration tribunal, which other unions declare they will not have anyway. The Daily Herald then (October 24h, 1958) called it a move to help the employers by abolishing the “referee to see fair play.”

And in the present dispute Mr. Willis, in the matter of strike pickets, was calling on the Government to observe “strict impartiality” (Times, June 26th), as if a government committed to keeping Capitalism going (as all governments must be that take on the administration of Capitalism) could “impartially” stand aside and not defend the property rights of the propertied class.

The International Aspect

The fact is that the trade union movement still broadly accepts Capitalism though prepared to strike against the Capitalists. This was clearly shown by the attitude of the printing unions. They belong to the printing workers Trade Union International, the International Graphical Federation, and some at least of the continental unions acceded to the request that they should advise their members not to do “black” work sent abroad during the strike. But in the middle of the strike NATSOPA released a plan it had drawn up suggesting a deal between the British unions and the British employers. If the latter would concede the demands on hours and wages, in return the unions would cooperate on a joint productivity council: “ The essence of the plan is that the prosperous big groups with stable and profitable home markets will help the small and medium printers, and particularly the printing concerns working on export printing. The plan should make British printers highly competitive in markets abroad.” (News Chronicle, June 23rd, 1959.)

So the unions, while fighting the employers, are quite prepared to collaborate with them to capture foreign markets—where, of course, they will clash with foreign printers who. again with the collaboration of the workers, will be resisting the invasion and trying to counter attack. This, of course, makes nonsense of the object of the printers' trade union international: “To safeguard the economic, occupational and general interests of graphical workers in all countries and to promote their solidarity.” (Our italics.)

In the nineteenth century Socialist critics of the trade union movement used to ridicule the illogicality of workers fighting the employers in the industrial field and electing the same people to Parliament and supporting them nationally. The present outlook of the trade unions shows that they have still a long way to go before they realise that the workers’ interest demands real international working class solidarity against the employers—and for Socialism.

War on the Wage Front (1957)

From the April 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is  the Time Opportune?

Along with the shipbuilding workers who came out on strike on 16 March, millions of workers in the engineering, building, railway and other industries have claims awaiting settlement. The newspapers and politicians urge the workers to be moderate and to submit their case to arbitration and they profess to be shocked that a trade union official, Mr. Hill of the Boilermakers, should say "No arbitration. We are going to fight" and that Sir William Grant chairman of the Engineering and Allied Employers, West of England Association, should declare:—“This time we do not want government interference. That is quite positive. We want to fight it out ourselves. We have got to stand firm and prove to these fellows that things are not done so easily." (Daily Mail, 13, March, 1957.)

In the same quarters tears are shed because there should be a hold-up of industry “just now,” the idea being that strikes are all very well in the past or in the future but not (as the Daily Mail puts it) “just as Britain is coming out of the Suez squeeze and the gold reserves are climbing up again." This is humbug and is a line of argument that should be totally ignored by workers considering strike action. If at any time conditions are relatively favourable for workers to strike be sure the Government and the employers and the Press will find reasons why it should not take place then. But workers with long memories will recall the many times past when they have been lulled into delaying action while the employers prepared for battle. It happened in 1922 with the engineers in a dispute over an overtime agreement. Negotiations broke down in April, 1921, but the employers waited seven months before they delivered their ultimatum that led eventually to a weeks long lock-out—they were waiting for the heavy unemployment to undermine the resistance of the workers and to deplete the funds of the Unions through payment of unemployment benefit.

Are the Employers Bluffing?

The present engineering dispute is being fought against a background that is very different from the lock-out of 1922, and the difference is not that, because of the so-called “Welfare State,” the wages war has changed its nature or that arbitration has made strikes unnecessary. The difference lies in the state of industry and of unemployment, the factors that workers do need to study closely. Strikes are not won by bull-headed bravery; the employers, with the Government behind them, if they regard an issue as vital, cannot be starved into submission, and in a long-drawn-out battle of that kind are bound to win. But if trade is good and employers do not want to have profitable production interfered with their first blunt refusal to make an offer will prove to be bluff. That may well be the situation now and short sharp strike actions may be successful.. A few months ago with motor car and ancillary plants on short time many employers may have contemplated a show-down over wage claims but with the motor trade recovering and engineering and shipbuilding profits and exports on a high level it is more likely that employers generally will be prepared to pay a wage-increase rather than have plant shut down and contracts interrupted.

The Daily Mail in a leading article (13/3/57) has admitted that “there is little question that the shipbuilders could afford higher wages . . ." They were doubtful about some engineering firms but it is rather surprising that they should have gone so far as this.

The Labour Party and Strikes

Labour spokesmen have attacked the Tory Government for their handling of wage disputes and in particular have blamed the Government for allowing the cost of living to rise. But no one should be deceived into thinking that things were any different when the Labour Government was in power. In 1948 there was also an engineering wage claim, which likewise the employers turned down. The engineers then too threatened strike action and their case was based on the rise of the cost of living and the general inadequacy of pay. But far from the Labour Government giving them encouragement, this was the time of the “wage-freeze” policy and the workers were being told that they should not ask for more pay although prices were rising.

But the engineering workers persisted and their threat to strike brought results, for a court of inquiry specially appointed by the government recommended a wage increase, though it did so with the explanation that it was only because of “particular circumstances" in the engineering claim and was not to be a precedent for other workers and so upset the Labour Government's “wage freeze" policy. It did in fact open the way for other workers to claim.

Don’t worry about the Germans and the Japs

The workers who demand more pay and threaten to strike are being told, as they always are on such occasions, that British export prices will be pushed up and foreign manufacturers will capture all the markets. The obvious working class reaction to this factor ought always to be that of strengthening international trade union organisation so that workers in all countries can act together on wage claims, this time some sort of all-round movement is in being for wages are rising fairly generally in Europe, U.S.A. and elsewhere. In Germany it is the engineering and shipbuilding workers who are leading the way and Japanese workers also are striking:—

“In Germany, organised labour is growing steadily more militant; Its appetite has been whetted by the success of the 16 week strike of engineering and shipyard workers over sickness payments and annual holidays, and similar claims are expected from other branches of the Metal Workers Union. In Japan, this year's labour troubles look like being worse than last year's. . (Financial Times 14/3/57).

Nonsense abort Nationalisation

Some engineering and building workers are deceiving themselves with the notion that the long-term way out of their wages difficulties and the threat of short-time or unemployment when sales fall off, is to press for nationalisation of their industries. They should think again and drop this nonsense. Nationalisation has solved no problem for the working class and they have before their eyes a striking example in the railways. The railwaymen are among the worst paid industries. They have just rejected a miserly offer of a three per cent. increase and appealed to arbitration for more. And at that arbitration on 26 February of this year the spokesman of the Transport Commission, opposing the claim, gave the same reason as does every group of employers, “the duty" of the Commission to resist the claim on the ground of their financial difficulties, the fact that they are making a loss instead of a profit (Daily Telegraph, 27 February, 1957).

Nationalisation is not deserving of working class support and to raise the issue in relation to a wage claim is worse than useless.

But that is not to say that workers should go on year after year imagining that there is no other way except to strike for higher pay when trade is good and go down fighting when trade is bad. The way is open whenever a socialist working class wants to use it. It is to take democratic political action to get rid of capitalism and establish socialism in its place. Then there will be the certainty, through the ending of the destruction and waste of capitalism, of bringing about a vast increase in the production of useful things and no propertied class to stand in the way of that so much promised and never arriving "higher standard of living.”

The suicidal action of the workers every few years at general elections is of far greater and more lasting importance than the strikes for higher wages that occur in between. At elections the working class places in power the Tory or Labour politicians who use their office to keep in being the social system which makes the workers a propertyless class producing wealth and profits for the capitalist minority. Given this situation, with the government in the background safeguarding the position of the propertied class, the industrial struggle over wages and conditions of work can go its up and down way indefinitely without ever settling anything. Socialism is the only way to end it and open up a new horizon for society.

Edgar Hardcastle