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,
noting the context in which it arose, and 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:
1.
Introduction.
1.1
Definition of “the labour movement” #definition
1.2
Contrasting views on the movement #contrasting views
2.
Historical context of the growth of the
labour movement:
2.1:
before the industrial revolution - peasants, craftsmen and guilds #before the industrial revolution
2.2:
industrialisation and capitalism – gains and losses for working
people: #industrialisation
2.3: economic, political, and social
strategies – the first ideas about struggle: #first ideas
2.4
The
2.5
possible reactions by the poor: #possible reactions
2.6
political or economic demands - further discussion: #political
2.7
the beginnings of political parties supporting the labour movement: #parties
2.8 The central question: power #power
2.9
Technology and the question of power (or control): #technology Davy’s lamp: #Davy lamp; Lucas Alternative Plan: #Lucas
Aerospace workers' plan
2.10
The dual nature of work: #work
3. The history of the workers’ movement as a
power struggle – trade unions, employers and the law – late 19th
to early 20th century: #unions and the law
3.1 Overview: changing ideas, and the role
of the state #overview
3.2
The Combination Acts #Combination Acts
3.3
Peterloo
#Peterloo
3.4
Robert Owen, Grand National Consolidated Trade Union #Robert
Owen
3.5
Tolpuddle Martyrs #Tolpuddle
3.6
Chartists
#Chartism
3.7
3.8
Match Girls #Match Girls
3.9
Dockers #dockers
4. The Twentieth Century #Twentieth Century
4.1
Early 20th century – the workers’ struggle #struggle
4.2
The 1926 General Strike #General Strike 1926
5. References.
**********************************
NOTES.
1. Introduction:
1.1 Definition
of “the labour movement”:
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.
trade unions, (however, as will be seen, the ‘roots’ of the labour
movement can be found in the period before the growth of trade unions)
2.
any political parties that exist to represent workers (especially the Labour Party – but note
the discussion going on (2016) around whether it is a party or a movement. Note
also Gary Younge’s view
in
Guardian Weekend 17th Sep 2016: ‘a range of disparate movements
around war, feminism, education, inequality’ have converged on the Labour
party.)
3.
various political organisations of a socialist, syndicalist, anarchist or
Marxist outlook.
For
these notes (imagining-other.net) I have selected only two aspects of the
movement, viz.:
- the growth of trade unions in
- the Russian Revolution of 1917 (see Notes on the
Russian Revolution) [for the UEL course on The Radical 20th
century].
1.2 Contrasting views on
the movement:
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.
2.
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).
2.1: before the
industrial revolution - peasants, craftsmen and guilds
In pre-industrial society, in
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
2.2:
industrialisation and capitalism – gains and losses for working people:
All this changed with industrialisation: technology
enabled production to become mass
production in factories, (goods could be produced more cheaply this way).
At the same time, 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).
2.3: economic, political, and social
strategies – the first ideas about struggle:
I have so far emphasised the history of the trade
union movement, 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 (which also can be
seen as mainly concerned with economic/financial questions). 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. In the 18th
century the writings of Tom Paine in
defence of the American revolution and the ‘rights of man’, 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 in detail, so for further notes, see:
pp15socialismbeforemarx.htm
– for brief notes on the Levellers
pp11burkeandpaine.htm
– for notes on Tom Paine.
2.4 The
E.P. Thompson’s book is of course highly
recommended for understanding 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’? Thus political aims were central... (see 2.6 below).
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
2.5 possible reactions
by the poor:
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:
(i) 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
(ii) rioting and violent rebellion –
smashing machines, destroying shops or the houses of the rich
(iii) making specific demands, as with the “Six
Points” of the Peoples Charter (* footnote at end of these notes) - 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)
(iv) ultimately, the planning of revolution by the
growing revolutionary proletarian
movement (aiming at the “co-operative
commonwealth”).
2.6 political or economic demands? Further
discussion:
We have see, then, that 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”.
2.7 the beginnings of
political parties supporting the labour movement:
Eventually of course (early in the twentieth century) political parties were formed to make
demands on behalf of the workers, by giving them representation in Parliament.
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)
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!
2.8 The central question
is one of power:
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.
2.9 Technology and the
question of power (or control):
2.9.1 Davy’s miners’ safety lamp:
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 (1982) point out in their
study of technology (miners’ lamps) in the coal industry 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).
2.9.2 Lucas Aerospace
workers’ alternative corporate plan:
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?!
Echoing the point made above about a constant
conflict, McIvor says that industrial
relations in the workplace represents a “frontier of control” – 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).
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.
3.
The history of the workers’ movement as a power struggle – trade
unions, employers and the law – late 19th to early 20th
century:
3.1 Overview: changing
ideas, and the role of the state
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.
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. However, as Engels (Marx’s collaborator) 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, and the capitalist economy inevitably leads to conflict – but
the capitalists themselves (the owners and shareholders) always have the upper
hand (see 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 mainly because it is faced with irrefutable economic
laws is not only highly controversial (because it is deterministic), but it is over-simple (as many Marxists would
agree!). We need to take into account the other political players –
especially the state. 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!).
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.
In August 1819the ‘Peterloo Massacre’ occurred:
as the historian Tristram Hunt writes (Guardian newspaper 24.07.06): ‘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
3.4 Robert Owen, Grand
National Consolidated Trade Union
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
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
Chartism (From
Wikipedia) was a working-class movement for political reform in
The People's Charter
called for six reforms to make the political system more democratic:
Chartism
can be interpreted as a continuation of the 18th century fight against
corruption and for democracy in an industrial society, but it attracted
considerably more support than the radical groups of that time, and economic
causes of support for the movement – wage cuts, unemployment etc. –
should not be played down.’ 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.
A useful review (Guardian) http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/28/penny-loaves-butter-cheap-stephen-bates-review
of a book on ‘Britain in 1846’ sets out clearly the effects of the
repeal of the Corn Laws, and in passing mentions how the Chartists ended up, in
1848, presenting a petition to parliament for constitutional reform (rather
than manning the barricades as people did in other parts of Europe in that year
of revolutions!).
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
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
4.1 Early 20th
century - the workers’ struggle
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.
We can see that throughout this period legislation
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.
4.2
The 1926 General Strike. (Summary, taken from Hooberman op cit pp
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
Initially, on ‘Black Friday’
However, in 1925
Eventually it was agreed by the
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
The General Strike only lasted 9 days: about 2.5
million workers were on strike. On 12th May the
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
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.
*************************************************
5. References: (see also social movements -
books.htm)
1. History of the workers’ movement etc (main
references in bold):
Clegg, H.A. (1970): The System of Industrial Relations
in
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
Thompson,
E.P. (1963): The Making of the English Working Classes, Penguin
2. Social Movement Theory (see also references in: Social
Movements Theory):
Bottomore, T. (1979): Political Sociology,
Byrne, Paul (1997): Social Movements in
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,
Pakulski, J. (1991): Social Movements - the politics
of moral protest, Longman,
Parkin, F. (1968): Middle Class Radicalism,
Scott, A. (1990): Ideology and the New Social
Movements, Unwin Hyman
3. Technology:
Albury, D (1982): Partial Progress, 1982,