People Power

Protest and Social Movements in the Twentieth century

     

                                                                                                                                                                      Return to: Imagining Other Contents Page

                                                                                                                                                                            Go to: labour movement part 2

                                                                                                                                                                                        labour movement part 3

 

1. The Labour Movement

 

Part 1 – Historical Context

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 

Aims:

 

(i) To examine the labour movement as an example of a social movement – perhaps the first social movement of the “modern” world.

This will raise some issues, and give us some theoretical perspectives, which we can apply to other social movements.

 

(ii) To give an overview of the history of the labour movement, examining the aims, strategies and beliefs of workers and others involved in the movement.

 

(iii) To appraise the achievements of the labour movement – in the past, e.g. contributing to the expansion of the franchise, and in the 20th century, viz: protecting workers’ standards of living and working conditions, etc.

 

Outline:

 

(a)

1.1 Introduction: Definition: what do we mean by “the labour movement”?

(b) Overview of the historical context of the growth of the labour movement, aims and purposes of the movement:

          1.2 before the industrial revolution

          1.3 industrialisation and capitalism

          1.4  economic, political, or social strategies:

          1.5  political or economic demands?

          1.6  the history of the workers’ movement as a power struggle – trade unions, employers and the law:

          1.7 The 1926 General Strike.

 

         

References.

 

                             **********************************

 

NOTES.

 

(a) Introduction: Definition of “the labour movement”, its history and issues affecting it:

 

1.1 The labour movement exists to protect the conditions (including pay) of workers, and to improve them if possible.

 

Naturally, the movement - that is, workers acting collectively and for consciously-formulated goals (as distinct from mere rebellion or uprisings) -came into existence soon after the industrial revolution, when work began to be focussed on factories.

 

Today we would include in the labour movement:

1.    trades unions,

2.    any political parties that exist to represent workers,

3.    and various political organisations of a socialist, syndicalist, anarchist or Marxist outlook.

 

Note:

These notes will not attempt to describe the broader social and political changes that accompanied the creation of a working class (for this see E.P. Thompson 1963 and other references at the end of these notes). Nor will this be a history of the Labour Party, though I will give an overview of socialist groupings associated with the labour movement.  To cover all of this would require several books!! In my view we can gain a basic understanding of the labour movement by focussing on a few aspects.

 

I have selected only two aspects of the movement, viz.:

- the growth of trade unions in Britain [for the WEA Course: People Power]

- the Russian Revolution of 1917 (see Notes on the Russian Revolution) [for the UEL course on The Radical 20th century].

 

The fact that such a movement came into existence can be seen either:

-   as evidence of workers resisting exploitation by those who control and manage their work -  this is the socialist and Marxist view; or:

-   perhaps as evidence that workers are greedy (in their demands for better wages etc) or power-hungry (should they aim to change capitalism) -  this is a right-wing, conservative view. As we shall see, the twentieth century has seen the dominance of one view or the other at different times.

 

(b) historical context of the growth of the labour movement:

 

(Note: this is of course a vast topic, and we can only sketch out a few important points here. To follow up the history in more detail please go to the reading list).

 

1.2: before the industrial revolution

 

In pre-industrial society, in Britain and Europe, work was almost entirely in agriculture, and in a small number of crafts (metalwork, woodwork, weaving etc). Peasants worked on the land, for themselves or for a landowner, and there was little they could do to ensure they had good working conditions – consequently, when conditions were bad, there were peasant revolts in many European countries, especially during the Middle Ages. These were led by such charismatic figures as Wat Tyler in this country, and Pugachev in Russia.

 

On the other hand, craftsmen (blacksmiths, carpenters, weavers etc) were independent, and in a sense self-employed, so issues of wages and conditions were their own responsibility: they employed apprentices who would learn the trade and follow in their footsteps.

 

One of the most interesting things about the Middle Ages is the way that craftsmen combined into guilds. These were a kind of precursor of trade unions (see also below), and of the labour movement. But they had very distinctive features which make any direct comparison with the labour movement and trade unions rather misleading. For example, guilds had control over the entry to the trade, they ensured standards and quality of work, and even controlled prices of goods. Both craftsmen and their apprentices were able to join the guilds. During the Middle Ages the guilds became very powerful, and their history is tied in with the way in which large towns and cities had some autonomy. The anarchist writer Kropotkin describes these activities as “mutual aid” in his book of the same name.

See: Political Philosophy Part 2: Anarchism  

 

1.3: industrialisation and capitalism

 

All this changed with industrialisation: as technology enabled production to become mass production in factories, (goods could be produced more cheaply this way) the division between those who controlled work (because they owned the factories) and those who simply worked - carrying out the orders of their employers - became more marked. This is the point at which the labour movement first emerged.

 

Not only were class distinctions becoming more clear and more polarised, but of course within the capitalist, or market, economy owners competed with each other in their drive for profits - and, naturally, one of the simplest ways of reducing production costs is to reduce wages, or to reduce the number of workers, e.g. through the introduction of machines. Thus, as Marx   and others saw it, the owners’ and the workers’ interests were in conflict with each other. Owners hired workers, who were forced into selling their labour (no work = no pay). Marx argued that this class division and class conflict had become the distinctive feature of what was now called capitalist society. All who write about the period agree that the accumulation of capital was a pre-requisite for the growth of production that took place. The disagreement is over the question of who benefited most: was wealth distributed amongst all sections of society, as conservatives (and even Adam Smith) argued – or was it rather the case, as radicals argue, that the owners’ share of wealth outstripped that of the workers? 

 

[Notes on Adam Smith are at: Political Philosophy Part 1: Adam Smith and at: Corporate Social Responsibility Ch 2.]

 

Writers such as Engels, in  “The Condition of the Working Classes in England” (1844 – quoted in ed. Harvie 1970) stressed how workers were pushed together into slums; their working hours were tightly regulated by the factory clock, (no longer, like the peasantry, working according to daylight and seasonal hours); and they were vulnerable to economic slumps and crises, thrown out of work if their labour costs were “too high” - whilst the owners, holding capital, were much more secure and could, to a large extent, determine their own income. Those who joined the labour movement shared the anger at the degradation of working peoples’ conditions, and were determined to fight back against the unfairness of the system. Given the harsh working conditions, and the lack of power they had, it is little wonder (in my view) that workers resisted. Marx pointed to a sweet paradox: the factory system threw workers together into collectives, but this enabled them to understand, and to begin to do something about, their common predicament – the capitalist system gave birth to its own grave-diggers! (See The Communist Manifesto, etc).

 

1.4  economic, political, or social strategies:

 

I have so far emphasised the history of the trade union movement (and further notes follow in 1.6 below), but I do not want to give the impression that the labour movement was ever only making ‘economic’ demands; nor that the labour movement sprang into existence with the trade unions. When we recall the economic conditions of the mass of people, from the 17th century through to the 19th century, we can see that workers were dramatically faced with political choices also, affecting both their strategy and their beliefs about society (ideologies). As E.P. Thompson (1963) argues, the part of the ‘English working class’ that became aware of the inadequacies of the political and economic system can trace its origins to the 17th century, with the Levellers and the writings of Tom Paine; in the 18th century the London Corresponding Society (set up in 1792), together with Dissenters and other religious groups carried the ideas forward.

 

There is no time or space here to go as far back as this, so for further notes, see:

pp15socialismbeforemarx.htm – for brief notes on the Levellers

pp11burkeandpaine.htm – for notes on Tom Paine.

 

E.P. Thompson’s book is of course highly recommended for the Making of the English Working Class! It starts with a striking account of the early days of the London Corresponding Society: this was set up for ‘Tradesmen, Shopkeepers, and Mechanics’ to discuss the question whether they had any right to ‘obtain Parliamentary Reform’? Its founder and first secretary Thomas Hardy was arrested in May 1794 by ‘the King’s Messenger, two Bow Street Runners, the private secretary to the Home Secretary’ and others, and charged with high treason. The punishment for high treason was to be ‘hanged by the neck, cut down while still alive, disembowelled (and his entrails burned before his face) and then beheaded and quartered’. Fortunately the jury ‘had no stomach for this’ and he was found Not Guilty. However, by the end of the decade the reformers had been repressed, the LCS was outlawed and meetings were banned, as was Tom Paine’s Rights of Man. I quote this as one example of the terrible power of the opposition to demands for rights for ordinary people…

 

As Hobsbawm notes (1962, p 251) the social inequalities of the early to mid 19th century were extreme. He gives the following illustrative example: whilst at a masked ball in 1842 the Baroness Rothschild wore one and a half million francs worth of jewellery, the women of Rochdale were described by a contemporary observer as “dreadfully hungry”… ready to “devour” a loaf of bread “even if it is covered in mud”. Hobsbawm adds that even the impoverished rural workers had twice the life expectancy of urban workers in Manchester or Liverpool.

 

So, there were “three possibilities… open to… the poor… They could strive to become bourgeois; they could allow themselves to be ground down; or they could rebel.” (loc cit, p 245).  Hobsbawm then notes that trying to become bourgeois was not only extremely difficult, but actually distasteful, since this was not yet a society which had adopted the widespread view now held that each of us has a right to better him/herself whatever the effects on others.

 

We can, then, identify a spectrum of alternative ways of dealing with the problem, open to the workers of the time, from the self-destructive through to the planning of a revolution:

 

-   the ultimately self-destructive: turning to drink, theft, or prostitution; believing in fringe religions i.e. the “second coming”; – even suicide and

mental derangement, were all ways (Hobsbawm suggests, loc cit p 249) of escaping “the fate of being a poor labouring man”, whilst avoiding

collective action

-   rioting and violent rebellion – smashing machines, destroying shops or the houses of the rich

-   making specific demands, as with the “Six Points” of the Peoples Charter quoted above, which Hobsbawm (loc cit p 256) argues was an

approach inspired by the French Revolution of 1789, i.e. a Jacobin outlook (for democracy, respect, recognition and equality)

-   ultimately, the planning of revolution by the growing revolutionary proletarian movement (aiming at the “co-operative commonwealth”).

 

1.5 political or economic demands?

 

(The next section may seem like a digression, but it is important – to my mind – to be clear about the nature of the power-relations between workers and employers/owners in order to understand the labour movement.)

 

As soon as workers began to organise, differences began to emerge amongst them, especially over the question: what is the best strategy? Should workers simply push for better wages and conditions (purely economic demands) or would this be hopeless without a struggle to change the whole economic system (which involved political demands)?

 

There was also an argument, promoted by such as William Morris, over the nature of work: was work degrading in itself, or could it be enjoyed as a contribution to social good? Morris argued that the market system meant that production was no longer for need or use, but for profit, and that this distorted everything. Once we had a society where production was for social use, then work would be satisfying – we would no longer even need the incentive of pay to get people to work! (See Morris’s “News from Nowhere”, quoted in Harvie 1970 p 321).

 

Friedrich Engels noted the unions’ stress on economic goals in 1879: “the English working class movement has confined itself within a narrow circle of strikes for higher wages and shorter hours…. The trade unions in their charters actually bar all political action on principle and in this way they stop the proletariat as a class from taking part in any working-class movement.” (ed. Harvie, 1970, p 131)  Harvie adds (p 132) that it was only “when mechanisation struck at the skilled trades in the 1880s, and the unskilled workers were [also] unionised, that a militant and class-conscious movement of the sort envisaged by Engels started to emerge”. But this still means that, despite Engels’s reservations, the unions in the longer term did contribute to the development of a politically oriented movement (see also below).

 

We can from time to time still see a strong socialist presence in the unions (see further below): thus, on Clydeside there was a powerful radical presence, and the area gained a reputation as “Red Clydeside” – this showed the influence of individuals and parties such as the Independent Labour Party (founded 1890), who put considerable effort into propaganda in the area, and so the spread of socialist ideas was not just a result of the intensification of work at the time. The ILP campaigned on a broad range of issues, including housing and poverty. (See MacIvor 2001)

 

Eventually of course (early in the twentieth century) political parties were formed to make political demands on behalf of the workers, and thus to give them representation in Parliament.  In the UK, this was the Labour Party, which was undoubtedly formed as a result of pressure from the labour movement – though, once formed, it has had to broaden its appeal to keep electoral support. The most natural political allies of organised labour are socialists; but in some European countries you will find others (e.g. Christian Democrats) representing the workers’ interests.

 

From the time of the formation of labour parties etc, trade unions increasingly served the function of making economic demands, i.e. for higher wages, more time off, and better conditions, whilst leaving the political struggle to the political (socialist) parties, (a ‘division of labour’!!). It can even be argued (in a similar way to Engels as described above) that, if unions focus entirely on their pay and conditions, and in so far as a trade union will very often try to maintain the “differential” between its workers’ pay and the pay of some other group (that is traditionally regarded as not deserving such high pay), trade unions are in practice far from being political at all, let alone socialist!

 

However, perhaps the distinction between “economic” and “political” is false, or too narrow? For one thing, whenever workers try to improve wages or conditions they are in effect challenging the managers’ and owners’ power. Classical Marxists (see: Notes on Marx) tend to stress the economic control that owners have over the workers – other socialists (and not just those Harvie calls “middle class radicals”) note that there is another crucial issue that is at the root of much industrial (and social) conflict: who has power, or control, over the work process?  (See Notes on Castoriadis - Recommencing Revolution).

 

In other words, it is argued that it is not possible to isolate economic power from other dimensions of power. This idea has been developed by other socialists, such as Gramsci, whose concept of ‘hegemony’ identifies the ruling class’s power over workers’ thinking (consciousness, ideology) as well as over their pay and working conditions.

 

As further evidence to back up the idea that workers are controlled in other ways than simply not receiving the wage they are entitled to, take the issue of workers’ opposition to technological change (when they are accused of being “Luddites”); this criticism usually involves an over-simplification of the issue.  For example, when the (actual) Luddites opposed the introduction of machines that would lead to their losing their skills, they were not opposing technology as such, but the kind of technology and how it was being applied. As Albury and Schwartz point out in their study of technology (miners’ lamps) in the coal industry (Partial Progress, 1982, Univ. of Michigan Press) there are always choices to be made over the introduction of new technology, there are choices over what kind of technology, and the central issue we always need to address is: who will benefit from the changes?  Albury and Schwartz argue that the Davy lamp was not introduced just to save miners’ lives (in fact, the accident statistics show that it didn’t) but because it also enabled the exploitation of gas-filled seams that otherwise would have been more dangerous for miners to work. Productivity, and the owners’ profits, subsequently went up. The number of miners killed in explosions also went up… If the mine owners had listened to the miners’ proposals for safety (more ventilation) then undoubtedly lives would have been saved, but the owners’ profits would have been reduced (ventilation shafts were more expensive than miners’ lamps).

 

This case, and others like it, demonstrates that workers’ movement is not simply defensive or reactionary (in the sense of reacting to events) – miners already had a solution to the problem of explosions in the mines: the owners resisted this and tried to find a simpler and cheaper solution. An important part of the owners’ viewpoint was their belief that they had the right to make decisions about the work process.

 

Similarly, when modern-day workers resist the introduction of computer-based production methods, these disputes could be solved by a different approach to technology, if only managers would ‘get out of the way’ and stop insisting on their ‘right to manage’ (which is after all another form of power).

 

To give another example, when workers (in the late 1970s – see CSR Chapter 4) at Lucas Aerospace were threatened with redundancy (because of a decline in orders from the government for defence-related equipment), they came up with a number of suggestions for alternative products that they could make – still using their advanced skills and technological knowledge. A crucial problem that often arises when managers choose a new technology is the phenomenon of ‘deskilling’ – workers are no longer in control of the work, but pass over their skills to machines (automated systems and robots). The workers proposed hybrid power engines (thirty years later we at last have hybrid powered cars on the road), heat pumps (popular now as a way of heating without producing CO2!), a road-rail bus, and more production of kidney dialysis machines (there was a shortage at the time).  The fact that these ideas were not taken up may well say more about the lack of imagination on the part of British management than anything else, and it certainly reflected the management’s mistrust of the workforce, and their need to hold on to their decision-making power (their right to manage)! Mere workers could not be allowed to challenge the managers’ right to make decisions about the product and the output of the business: where would that end?!   

 

Finally, a recent writer continues the discussion of workers’ attitudes to work with a valuable, and to my mind a balanced, study of the labour movement. A.J. McIvor (2001) focuses on work, how it affects people’s lives, and how the labour movement reacted to changes at work. He stresses the dual nature of work: it brings meaning and dignity or status to people’s lives, (and loss of work is demoralising); but at the same time it can be dangerous (all work was dangerous in Victorian times, he says) and degrading.

 

This dual nature of work goes some way to explaining the complex attitudes of the trade union movement: its aims are to defend jobs, whilst at the same time to prevent jobs being dangerous or alienating. Anarchists would argue that these are contradictory aims: the nature of work in a capitalist society is bound to be exploitative. Thus the old anti-unemployment slogan (used by the International Socialists/Socialist Worker Party) “defend the right to work” suggests that capitalist employment is a good thing… anarchists would argue for “the right to be lazy”!  This discussion of course puts a different slant on the question explored above as to whether unions should press for economic or political demands.

 

Echoing the point made above about a constant conflict, McIvor says that industrial relations in the workplace represents a “frontier of control” (a phrase used by Goodrich 1920) – workers develop a sense of solidarity, setting up collective structures (workers’ shop floor committees, unions etc) in order to try to gain control over different aspects of the work (safety, hours, pay, the pace of work etc) but employers and managers will fight to defend their right to manage – their managerial prerogative (and they, too will form collective organisations, such as, today, the CBI).

 

1.6  the history of the workers’ movement as a power struggle – trade unions, employers and the law – late 19th to early 20th century::

 

The main vehicle workers used to better their conditions and to try to gain more control over their work was, of course, the trade union movement. There follows a brief account of the growth of this movement from its beginnings to the height of its strength.

 

Please note that the trade unions are only a part of the labour movement, and we return to more political areas below. However, a study of the history of unions is very useful in throwing up issues that are applicable to the whole labour movement.

 

Engels said, in 1844: “The history of these unions is a long series of defeats of the working-men, interrupted by a few isolated victories.” (The Conditions of the Working Class in England, in Harvie 1970, p 133). In Engels’s view this was because unions cannot change economic laws, (see above, also: Marxism - an overview). Others are more positive about the achievements – in the long term – of trade unions (see below). However, to see the  labour movement as being weak in because it is faced with irrefutable economic laws is not only highly controversial, but over-simple (as many Marxists would agree!). For we must reiterate that there was also a very uneven distribution of power, favouring the owners and against the workers. As Ben Hooberman notes in the Historical Introduction to his 1974 Introduction to British trade unions: from medieval times the law (i.e. the state, which in the early days of the movement was synonymous with the wealthy) had a say in fixing workers’ wages and conditions (e.g. the Ordinance of Labourers, 1349!). [Further comments on the law and workers follow below.]

 

Early in the 19th century there occurred the Peterloo Massacre’: as the historian Tristram Hunt writes (Guardian newspaper 240706): on August 16th 60,000 workers, artisans, journeymen and radicals congregated on St Peter’s Fields on the edges of fast-industrialising Manchester to demand adult male suffrage and a repeal of the Corn Law price-fixing cartel. Workers had realised that without political power they would never reap the riches of industrialisation. The meeting represented a dangerous challenge to the political and economic monopoly of the landed aristocracy.’ Magistrates demanded that they leave (fears of the influence of the French Revolution were strong), local officers could not deal with the crowd and called in the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry, and the 15th Hussars. ‘Inexperienced, scared, possibly drunk, the armed cavalrymen turned their sabres on the crowd, killing 11 and maiming hundreds.’ The event came to be known as ‘Peterloo’ in mocking reference to the battle of Waterloo.

 

Moreover, it is not as well-known as it should be, that for many, many years workers were forbidden by law to “combine” – i.e. to get together even to discuss their conditions. The Combination Acts (passed in 1799/1800) made such activity punishable by imprisonment or even by deportation! They were not repealed until 1824, and even then, when the repeal was followed by a series of strikes and riots, the Act was amended in 1825 to restrict the right or workers to combine: they could only do so to agree with employers their wages and hours of work.

 

Still, once they were able to do so, ordinary workers began to organise into unions, (skilled workers had been the first to organise) and the National Association for the Protection of Labour tried to bring unions together. A key figure at this time (early in the 19th century) was Robert Owen, who believed in workers’ co-operatives – which would free workers from the power and control exercised by employers. Owen set up working communities himself (e.g. New Lanark) where he as owner took a paternalistic interest in the workers’ welfare. In 1834, under Owen’s influence, the Grand National Consolidated Trade Union was set up, with the aim of buying land and tools so that workers could survive even when on strike. Workers flocked to join the Grand National, which soon had over 1 million members. However, due to its getting involved in strikes and lockouts before it had been fully established, it ran out of funds and collapsed by the end of the year. (Hooberman 1974)

 

Workers had also been discouraged from joining the union by the treatment of the Tolpuddle Martyrs. These were a group of six agricultural labourers who attempted to set up a Friendly Society: the government, using an Act of 1797, convicted them of sedition for taking an illegal oath (as members of the Society – the secret oath was for their protection, such was the hostility to them in official circles at the time).  In 1834 the men were sentenced to seven years exile in Australia – the sentences only being remitted four years later, after widespread protest.

 

At about the same time, in 1836, the Chartist Movement was founded: workers realised that Parliament was so unrepresentative of their interests that it would have to be reformed. Chartists therefore had an explicitly political goal and used political means, such as demonstrations and petitions, and pressurising parliament, to demand greater democracy and an improvement in workers’ conditions. A most memorable occasion was the mass rally of April 10th 1848 (writes Tristram Hunt, loc cit), on Kennington Common (now Park) ‘prior to handing in their petition’ – which ‘was a demand for the dismantling of the ancien regime of patronage and property.’ This was one of the greatest public meetings of the British labour movement. Although only 15,000 attended, it still frightened the authorities, who were mobilising troops, fearful of a British version of the European revolutions of 1848 (Paris, Vienna and Berlin had been affected).

 

Hobsbawm (1962, p144, 162) notes the Chartists’ demands:

manhood suffrage,

vote by ballot,

equal electoral districts,

payment of members of parliament,

annual parliaments (we still don’t have this!), and

abolition of property qualification for (parliamentary) candidates.

 

Hobsbawm says that these demands were more closely allied to middle class radicalism, than to any self-conscious socialism or communism. Nevertheless, by taking the position that it was those in parliament who ought to be doing something about inequality, the Chartists paved the way for political representation of the workers.

 

As Hobsbawm notes, (1962, chapters 12 and 13) the whole intellectual climate began to change in the nineteenth century:

 

- Liberal beliefs in “progress” were challenged (though not refuted, since socialism predicted progress through social change) by the evident poverty;

- the optimism of the economics of Adam Smith was replaced by the “dismal science” of Malthus and Ricardo (who argued, before Marx, that the rate of profit would tend to decline)

- leading figures such as Robert Owen, as well as Engels and Marx, came to have an influence. Marx’s ideas were exceptionally powerful, since he combined the theories of economics, social science and politics into one “system” of thought. Moreover, this system had a powerful ethical appeal: capitalism therefore was evil, but also doomed to fail, for reasons that – he believed – could be identified scientifically and by empirical observation.

 

In 1871 the Trade Union Act was passed, and unions’ objects were no longer unlawful, peaceful picketing became legal, and their income (provided they were registered) was not to be subject to income tax. This legislation followed the founding of the TUC (Trades Union Congress) in 1868, and the extension of the franchise to include industrial workers in the same year. An important principle was established here, it seems to me: “no act carried out by a group of workmen was punishable unless it would have been a criminal act if carried out by an individual.” (Hooberman op cit p 6). How revealing that before then workers’ collective acts were regarded as so different to the actions of individuals, in the eyes of the law!  But this was not the end of the struggle over the law in industrial relations…. (see below on legislation).

 

Another significant event in the growth of trade unions was the 1888 “match-girls strike”: campaigners and writers such as Henry George, H.M. Hyndman, Robert Blatchford, William Morris and Keir Hardie drew attention to the plight of unskilled workers at the time (Hooberman, loc cit). The match-girls were earning pitifully small sums for their dangerous work (a kind of gangrene called phossy-jaw could be caused by working with phosphorous), and employers tried to get them to sign an agreement saying that their working conditions were satisfactory – they refused and went on strike. The girls formed a union, with Annie Besant as Secretary, and eventually the employers had to give way. Now unskilled workers were organised as well.

 

The next year, 1889, gas-workers under Will Thorne’s leadership formed a union, forerunner of the General and Municipal Workers Union. There was another significant successful strike, the “Great Dock Strike” in 1889 again led by Will Thorne. This strike action was supported by public donations from as far away as Australia, by other unions, and by solidarity on the part of the militant stevedores. It is worth noting that Hooberman, from whom this summary account is taken, was writing before the major changes to dock-work at the end of the last century, but even he notes that “a long and hard struggle still lay in front of the dockers before security of employment and reasonable wages became their lot” (loc cit p 8). He also notes the decline in numbers of dockers owing to the changes in handling techniques (i.e. containerisation) – what was to come he could hardly imagine! (So much of this has passed into history, even though it is in the living memory of many of us. My [21st century] spell-check doesn’t even recognise the word “docker”!!!).

 

Legislation throughout this period swung now for and now against the unions, and it has done so ever since:

 

-   there was a reverse for trade unions in 1901, with the Taff Vale decision, where the Lords said that trade unions could be sued in their

registered name and their funds taken to pay damages for the wrongful acts of their officials.

-   This provoked an outcry, and a Royal Commission led to the Trades Disputes Act, in 1906, which restored the intention of the law as it had

been with the 1871 Act, and which also reversed the Taff Vale and other anti-union decisions. The point here is that unions had been regarded as

associations, i.e. groups of people banding together voluntarily for common objectives, and having no legal identity. Hence it had been very difficult to sue a union, or even the union officials, for the actions of their members (loc cit p 9).

-   In 1910 Lords judgement (the Osborne judgement) said that unions could not finance political candidates or pursue political activity! But this

was nullified and superseded by the Trade Union Act of 1913, which permitted the setting up of separate political funds. Members could opt

out if they wished. 

-   After the General Strike (see below), legislation was passed (Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927) which restricted union activity yet

again, making action to coerce the government, or which harmed the community, illegal. This was repealed by the Labour Government in 1946.

 

Not much point would be served here by my going into more detail of subsequent changes in the law, which you can follow up in Hooberman’s Introduction, or in books on Labour Law. The main points I wish to make here concern: the struggle that accompanied the rise of the labour movement, and the point that trade unions are special kinds of collective organisation (even the law recognises this now!) and which therefore, in my view, need special regard when applying the law. (I return to this in section 2.5 of the next set of notes sm1labour2.htm ).

 

1.7  The 1926 General Strike.

 

Before moving on to more recent times, there is one more historical event which it is important to consider – if briefly – and that is the 1926 General Strike (summary taken from Hooberman op cit p 10 – 12):

 

There was a dramatic economic slump after the First World War (the “Great depression”): by March 1921 there were over 2 million unemployed workers, and wages were falling. There was briefly a Labour government (the first, elected in 1924), whose period of office was accompanied by strikes. The mine-owners decided to cut workers wages, and the miners, through the Miners Federation, approached the TUC for support.

 

Initially, on ‘Black Friday’ April 15th 1921, the leaders of the transport and rail unions refused to strike in support of the miners. (See Anne Perkins’s book). Many trade unionists (and Roy Hattersley’s mother! – see review in G 150706) remember this betrayal.

 

However, in 1925 Britain returned to the gold standard (Winston Churchill’s decision) – and overseas markets for coal were lost as it became relatively too expensive.

 

Eventually it was agreed by the TUC that coal would not be handled or transported (by rail, road, canal or docks) unless the mine-owners made some concessions to the miners. In 1925 (on May 1st – Red Friday!) the government, under Stanley Baldwin, agreed to subsidize workers wages for nine months, and to appoint a Royal Commission on the industry’s future. However, meanwhile it made preparations to deal with a strike, setting up committees to organise transport and the distribution of essential supplies. In March 1926 the Commission reported, with no proposals that would help the miners (it rejected nationalisation and subsidies).

 

The mine-owners stood firm, and posted lockout notices to take effect from 30th April – and on that day the government declared a state of emergency. The TUC called an executive meeting to ask for support for the miners and for a general strike: all unions agreed except the seamen.

 

The General Strike only lasted 9 days: about 2.5 million workers were on strike. On 12th May the TUC called off the strike, despite there being no agreement with the government about a minimum wage for the miners, nor even any protection against victimisation after the strike! In fact there was widespread victimisation after the strike, and the government had to intervene to protect workers. The TUC leaders - supported I might add by the Communist party - believed the situation was not right for a confrontation with the government which could only have been resolved with major social and political changes (a revolution in fact?).  As a CP friend of mine used to say “never fight a battle you are not sure you can win”… Anne Perkins describes the chaos at the TUC HQ, and the lack of clear objectives.

 

Other factors that militated against the strike succeeding were: the tanks patrolling the streets, troops bivouacked in Kensington Gardens, Churchill’s setting up the British Gazette, which called for trade union power to be curbed, the government commandeering the BBC and denying airtime to the unions – a ‘stranglehold on public opinion’ as Ian Pindar puts it (review of Perkins’s book in Saturday G).

 

The miners stayed on strike on their own for 6 months longer, (which they would not have been able to do without the help of other unions), whilst the government legislated to lower their wages and their unemployment benefit. There was so much anger at the behaviour of the mine-owners, however, that the Labour Party determined to nationalise the mines when they were returned to power, and (according to Perkins 2006) the strike changed public opinion to such an extent that Labour (under Ramsay MacDonald) became the biggest party in the 1929 election.  In the longer term, too, workers gained improved negotiating machinery, there were fewer strikes for the next two decades, and, despite anti-union legislation after the strike, membership grew and the unions not only regained their influence but increased it, so that they became much more widely accepted.

 

By 1945, the idea of collective action had become embedded in the national culture, as Perkins puts it, and the Tories had shifted to become more supportive of the state’s involvement in the economy (e.g. through council housing, and the Welfare State). The same year the NUM was formed (Attlee was in government), and the World Federation of Trade Unions set up.

 

However, the immediate effect of the failure of the General Strike was a loss in members to the trade unions: membership declined until 1934, before beginning to pick up again. But MacIvor (2001) argues that the damage done to the movement by the General Strike has been exaggerated, given the long-term benefits just mentioned.

 

                                      **************************************

Main References:

 

1. Theory (see also references in: Social Movements Theory):  

 

Bottomore, T. (1979): Political Sociology, Hutchinson

Byrne, Paul (1997): Social Movements in Britain, Routledge

Della Porta, D. (1999): Social Movements, an introduction, Blackwell

Giddens, A (1989): Sociology, Polity Press

Lyman, S. (ed) 1995: Social Movements - critiques, concepts, case-studies, New York University Press

Maheu, L. (ed) (1995): Social Movements and Social Classes, Sage

McAdam, D. et al (1999): Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge

Pakulski, J. (1991): Social Movements - the politics of moral protest, Longman, Cheshire

Parkin, F. (1968): Middle Class Radicalism, New York, Praeger

Scott, A. (1990): Ideology and the New Social Movements, Unwin Hyman

Touraine, A. (1992): Beyond Social Movements in: Lyman, S. (op cit)

 

2. History of the workers’ movement etc:

 

Clegg, H.A. (1970): The System of Industrial Relations in Britain, Blackwell

Harvie, C. (ed) (1970): Industrialisation and Culture 1830 – 1914, Macmillan for the Open University

Hobsbawm, E. (1962): The Age of Revolution, Pelican

Hobsbawm E (1968): Industry and Empire, Pelican

Hooberman, B (1974): An Introduction to British Trade Unions, Pelican

MacIvor, A.J. (2001): A History of Work in Britain, 1880 – 1950, Palgrave

Perkins, Anne: A Very British General Strike, Macmillan 2006 £30

Thompson, E.P. (1963): The Making of the English Working Classes, Penguin

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Return to: Imagining Other Contents Page