Pioneer

Outlines of Industrial History I 14.—THE BEGINNING OF TRADE UNIONS. I I As far back as Outline 5 an attempt was made to describe the modern wage-worker and his or- ganisations in comparison with other preceding types of workers. History bears record to count- less revolts of slave and serf, 'generally caused oy the extortion or oppression of some tyrant. But these united efforts were short-lived and contrary to these spasmodic, temporary combina- tions, the form of combination, whose beginning is the concern of this Outline, is continuous and lasting, and day by day, as the intelligence of its members increases, it becomes ever more powerful and important, solving present prob- lems. and providing, to the discerning eye, a fabric for the future oi society. Our survey will cover roughly the period from 1700—before which no continuous association of wage-earners can be said to have existed—to 1825, when the right of combination was secured and the formation of a trade union was no longer considered to be a crime. Tliw, as the Indus- trial Revolution is our next lesson, some over- lapping will again occur; however, this method of treatment will have the advantage of clearly showing that trade unions did not, as is generally thought, arise only from the upheavals and dis- tress of the Industrial Revolution but that they were in being at least half a century before that event. THE GUILD AND THE JOURNEYMEN'S ASSOCIATION. A glance at the guilds will destroy all the parallels sometimes made between them and trade unions. The guild owned the then simple and inexpensive tools of production; therefore iu also owned the finished product. The skilled and long-apprenticed worker's disappearance we have already followed. In the best days of the g-uitd the master was only an official of the guild, and even at a later date, the possibility of be- coming a master st-ood before each journeyman. The guild was different from the trade union bath in structure aDd function, and in making a comparison the likenesses are outnumbered by the differences discovered. The journeymen's associations, though un- doubtedly containing the germ of the modern iinions, were only ephemeral. Complaints against the- journey meR eordwainers were heard as early as 1387; against the saddlers' serving-men in 1396; in 1497 the journeymen tailors were for- bidden to assemble; and in 1530 we hear of fric- tion between the shoemakers and their employers at Wisbech. The working tailor," who made up the cloth brought to him by his customers in his own individual work-shop, accused" the shop-keeping tailor *1 1681 of causing his de- triment by hiring a smart shop and keeping a number of journeymen working for him, antici- pating instead of obeying customers' orders. The capitalist and the permanent wage-worker are here seen evolving. .Further economic developments had, however, to take place before the antagonism between .111asterand man became such a permanent force that the workers, striving to retain their status and standard of living, were welded into "con- tinuous associations of wage-earners banded to- gether for the purpose of maintaining or im- proving the conditions of their employment"— the well known Webb definition of a trade union. The dissolving effects of commerce upon the old methods of production, 'the domestic system of production, the rape of the newly discovered worlds and the ensuing accumulation of wealth, and the growth of the manufactory system need Dot again be detailed. What ,we wish to discover is how the latter system deepened the antagon- ism between the owners and buyers of labour- power until this antagonism found its expression in the beginnings of trade unions. n, t EFFECTS OF MANUFACTURE. I Manufacture arises in two ways: (1) By the assembling of various independent handicraftsmen into one factory. The division otf labour outside the workshop, in this way, is imported inside. For example, instead of the middleman or "elothier in the cloth trade act- ing as a go-between for the various handicrafts- men. lie assembled all these spinners, weavers, fullers, dyers, etc., in his factory under his super- vision. Another oft used example taken from Marx, is the manufacture of carriages. Here again a number of independent craftsmen, wheel- wrights, harness makers, locksmiths, carpenters, painters, etc., are brought together and combine their efforts in the production of one commodity. The tailoi-I the locksmith, and the pther arti- ifcers, being now exclusively occupied in carriage making, each gradually loses, through want of practice, the ability to carry on, to its full ex- tent, his old handicraft. But, on the other hand, his activity now confined in one groove, assumes the form best adapted to the narrowed sphere of action. At first, carriage manufacture is a com- bination of various independent handicrafts. By degrees, it becomes the splitting up of carriage making into its various detail processes, each of which crystallizes into the exclusive function of a particular workman, the manufacture, as a whole, being carried on by the men in conjunc- tion. In the- same way, a colliery blacksmith, or a colliery engineman, is differentiated in time from blacksmiths and enginemen who do not help to produce the commodity coal. (2) By the gathering of like handicraftsmen. In this second way similar handicraftsmen are gathered together in the factory. For a time the handicraftsmen may perform the same com- posite labour as they performed outside the work- shop but soon the qualitative change follows the quantitative one, and the particular handi- craft is split up into a series of detail operations each becoming the work of a particular workman. 11 The commodity from being the individual pro- duct of an independent artificer, becomes the social product of a union of artificers, each of whom performs one, and only one, of the con- stituent partial operations." In whichever of the ways manufacture takes its rise, the result is the same; production is carried on by a social machine, the parts of which are human beings. Bearing this conclusion in mind, and never forgetting that, the motive of capital- ist production is to produce surplus value, and that profits can only be increased at the expense of wages, we will now endeavour to trace how manufacture affected labour and the labourer. From what has been already said it will be wnderstood that labour was now changed from composite, into detail labour; and the labourer, using his detail tool, is now not a synthetic worker, but a fractional one. By this specialisa- tion in labour and tools, by the saving of time formerly occupied in changing jobs and tools, and by th wor k- ers acquirement of a special aptitude and facility obtained by continuous practice in particular operations, the productivity of labour was enormously increased, and the simplification of operations made the way clear for the intro- duction of the machine tool, operated at first by 'human power but later being driven by other superior forces. The worker had to be reduced to a machine before he could be displaced by a ma- chine. It is hardly necessary to state who reaped the benefits from the increased produc- tivity of labour. Wages relatively decreased. Now in the assembling of handicraftsmen losg apprenticeship and skill would still, to some ex- tent, be neoesaary; bolt in the sesond way of manufacturer's rise, when handicrafts were split up, the need for skill and time for learning and probation would be greatly diminished. In fact, some of the operations, in the series, needed no skill at all. So, instead of the handicraftsmen having all passed through the same qualifying period, and being equally skilled and receivmg equal rates thene is now a difference be-bween the skilled and the unskilled worker; a hierarchy of labour powers, with different grades receiving different wages, comes into being. The skilled labour-power, in which is embodied years of training, is obviously more costly than unskilled lab our-power. The destruction of skill, which occurred i. the assembling and division of handi- crafts, though only partially in tke former, cheapened labour-power and increased surplus value. What is saved by not having to pay the wages of skill goes to swell profits. This explains, for example, why a colliery company is always eager to introduce, whenever possible, coal-cutters and boring machinery in order to escape paying the cost of skilled hewers and borers. Another way in which manufacture lessened the independence of the labourer and increased surplus value was that, by this new method of production, the labour-powers bought in the la- bour market individually from their respective owners are consumed collectively by the capital- ist buyer in his factory. Just as two men lifting together can shift a stone which they could not if lifting apart, or as a wire rope is much stronger than the added together individual strengths of the. wires which compose it. so individual labour-powers, when or- ganised into the mechanism of one factory and use up in co-operation with each other, produce more than if they were consumed apart. Just as the offensive power of a squadron of cavalry, or the defensive power of a regiment of infantry, is essentially different from the sum of the offen- sive or defensive powers of the individual cavalry or infantry soldiers taken separately, so the sum total of the mechanical forces everted by isolated workmen differs from the social force that is developed, when many hands talis part simul- taneously in one and the same undivided opera- tion, such as raising a heavy weight, turning a winclror removing an obstacle." Chapter 13 of Uapitai gives many other illustrations of the emulation, stimulation, and benefits arising from social labour. The credit and profit of this in- creased productiveness, begotten by the power of associated labour, goes, however, to the capital- ist—the officer of the regiment, who at that time had not relinquished the exercise of directive ability to an official managerial class and be- come a parasite as at present. One factor which caused the manufacturer to increase the rate of the exploitation of labour, and consequently, generating deeper antagonism, was the fact that the concentration of capital now began. The manufactories tended to become larger and larger as the benefits derived from them became more evident. Clearly one manu- factory, in which eighty people could work, would be cheaper to build than two, in each of which, only forty people could work. And if forty peo- ple created a certain amount of surplus value, surely the larger number would create double that amount. Thus larger capitals is really un- paid labour, the need for larger starting capitals would be an incitement to the manufacturers, competing among themselves, to enlarge the amount of surplus labour or surplus value be- cause this is the only source of capital. But all these improvements which were so beneficial to the manufacturer were accomplished at the expense of the labourer. Lost is the old creative joy of taking the product through all its verious stages by the labourer, when he has to confine his attention to the performance of a particular, monotonous, detail operation. This former independence is lost, too, for being only skilled in one partial operation, he cannot work outside the factory gates away from the machine 'Úf which he is a oog; be becomes a mere append- age of the machine of labour. Head and hand part company." Thinking is performed by an official class and the labourer does the working, j Honest spokesmen of the capitalist class have on many occasions pointed out the folly of educating the workers and their children because of its uselessness to them in their after life. Many farmers and other employers and even many workers—sad though it be to say it—would be in favour, even in our own days, of lowering the school-leaving age on the same grounds. The latter (the workers) have accepted, and recon- ciled themselves to, that commodity status which is theirs under capitalism which ignores their rights and needs as human beings. After noticing these effects of manufacture, the specialisation of the labourer and his tools, the reduction and destruction of skilled labour, the incrased profits made by social labour, and the coming of permanent wage-labourers with an ever receding chance of becoming capitalists themselves, that the workers should be forced by a compelling necessity to join together to pre- ,s(-rve t ] -ie ?s serve their standard of living is a result onlv to be expected. v I STRUCTURE OF THE EARLY UNIONS. Though, as pointed out above, manufacture re- duced the amount of skilled labour necessary, yet, it did not entirely destroy handicraft which was still the basis of production. Therefore the first unions were composed of skilled handicrafts- men and possessed a craft basis or structure. This craft structure enabled the unions to perform their functions until it was made obsolete by the coming of machinery. They were also local in their farm and at first were only local trade clubs. While certain trades and industries were still restricted to particular districts and communication and travelling were almost undeveloped, the form could not be other- wise. Only in later times do we see the evolu- tion of the local unions into national ones. POLICY OF THE EARLY UNIONS. -_I  ?- ?- -1 ?- Tile workers tried narcl to retain their skill and the long apprenticeships against the en- croachments of new developments. Enshrined in the traditions of the workers was the memory of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century Golden Age of labour. This gave them an historic back- ground for ideas of independence and for a belief in the sufficiency of a four days week of labour. Loud were the complaints of the manufacturers and their intellectual lackeys at this spirit. The divine example of resting only upon the seventh day was cited in vain to these intractable, self- willed workmen." "Throughout the whole manufacturing period there runs the complaint of want of desciplineamong the workmen." "Order must in one way or another be estab- lished," wrote one anonymous author: and the famous Dr. Ure rejoiced when Arkwright created order." Legislation directed to keep down wages was ineffective during the first two centuries of its existence as the labourers were in a powerful economic position and right up to the Industrial Revolution, the export trade was gradually getting bigger, and the workers being in demand and still owning in some cases a part of their tools, could still command attention and insist upon the observance of the seven years' apprenticeship. Not till 1777 was a Bill, destroy- ing this apprentice limit, successfully carried through Parliament at the 'instigation of the master-hatters. Thus in their policy, the early unions endea- voured to keep the supply of labour below the demand for their own benefit. The State still claiming to regulate wages, the unions could not openly, legally demand increased rates of pay; therefore they were forced to cloak over their real trade purposes with the friendly benefit side of their work. They paid out-of-work, sick, .and funeral pay and had meetings presumably for so- cial purposes. But as Adam Smith wrote': "The people of the same trade seldom meet together for merriment and diversion but the conversation ends in a conspiracy .against the public (!) m some contrivance to raise wages. 1700-1799. The following are examples of authentic trade unions which sprang up in this period. (.For fur- ther examples the reader should consult Webb.) In 1720 the master tailors cemplained to Par- liament of their employees, who had demanded higher wages and shorter hours, and have regis- tered their names in a book and contributed funds for their oemmon defence. Parliament fixed a maximum wage for them and in 1767 fur- ther injunctions were issued against their efforts, In the woollen manufacture in the West of England, from 1717 to 1725 the masters com- plained to Parliament of the combinations of their workmen. In the same industry in York- shire the factory system was later in its develop- ment and therefore the conditions not being ripe before, we only find combinations there in 1794. The woolcombers in the worsted industry in 1741 combined sick beneiits and trade regula- tion. The Woolstaplers and the Carriers pos- sessed federal unions in 1795 which aided their members when on tramp in search of work. The Spitalfields silkweavrs and the Goldbeaters com- bined in 1773 and 1777 respectively. The Knitters combined when, though still working in their cottages, their frames were hired from the small capitalist frame-owner who also gave out and collected the work. In 1780 when this frame renting became general their union was formed. In their development, these combinations pe- titioned Parliament to enforce its own laws in regard to wages and apprentice .restrictions. The conditions then made the manufacturing class revolutionary and the workers conservative but as always, the progressive forces won. That I which does not move forward ultimately decays." The weavers of Stroud in 1719, and the weavers of Wilts and Somerset in 172b appealed to the King for aid against their masters. In 1756 the Gloucester operatives had a table of wages fixed for them by Parliament. This Act, however, was repealed soon after and petitions after this date were useless. The destruction of the ap- prentice regulations has been before noted. With the ceming of the Industrial Revolution, trade unions multiplied in a pathetic attempt to prohibit machinery and retain the old standards. By 1792 and 1796 we find the Oldham and Stock- port cotton operatives forming professedly benefit clubs. Parliament was torn between the old policy of State regulation of hours and wages and the new policy of ?laissez-faire." The unions, having all their complaints disregarded, tried to win their claims by strikes and these provoked fierce demuuia ions of these conspiracies to raise wages from the employers. These strikes and the macbm n ishing riots were thought by the timid ai ro 1 ttj to he attempts to imitate the French Revolution which had just taken place in. 1789. At length, plagued by petitions and alarmed by the ever-growing trade union activity Parliament hurried through the Combination Acts of 1788 and 1800. These Acts made general and confirnted the former acts made against in- dividual unions; they made all combinations of any kind illegal and contained severe punish- ments against offenders. The trade unions had now to become secret societies or perish. 1800—1825. Now begins ? the struggle for existence." The unions continued their work in secrecy and in some trades they were powerful enough to force the employers to treat with them in others they were destroyed by legal prosecution. The workers in the machine invaded industries were the worst off. The conditions of secrecy and the savage sentences passed upon ofhmders-for the 1799 Act was ferociously administered—made for sporadic unions and prevented any permanent or national organisations^ Strikes occurred, e.g., the Durham and Northumberland miners struck in 1810 against their yearly bond and the truck system; and the Weavers in a strike, extending from Carlisle to Aberdeen, struck against deduc- tions and other grievances in 1812. Survivals of the oaths and awe-inspiring ceremonies used in these two associations still may be traced. Following the Napoleonic Wars came a time of stagnation and distress which was aggravated by the Corn Laws. Machine breaking, by the Lud- dites, the hanging and transportation of rioters, the march of the Blanketeers, the further appli- cation of machinery to other industries and the resulting dislocation, the prohibition of public meetings and of newspapers by heavy stamp du- ties—these were some of the events of the second decade of the Nineteenth Century. Aided by the Radicals, the workers made attempts to re- peal the Combination Act. Francis Place and Joseph Hume were prominent in this work and success crowned the effort in 1824. Contrary to the expectations of some of its promoters after the repeal, trade unions arose all over the coun- try. The boom in trade unions and strikes which followed the long legal suppression alarmed the ruling classes who had let the Repeal Bill slip through almost unnoticed. They secured the passing of an Act in 1825 which reaffirmed the former laws against conspiracy and gave only a. limited recognition to the trade unions. The trade unions had now the right to combine to secure increased wages or withhold their lib to avoid a decrease. But the Act contai., terms about molestation," "obstruction," anc "intimidation" which were capable of a very wide meaning in the hands of hostile lawyers and judges and almost made a strike impracticable. Many of the new unions were broken up by the depression of the crisis which came in tSie folldwing years, and when we take up their his- tory it will be to follow the revolutionary hopes of 1829 and onwards. Trade unions are the Frankenstein of capital- ism. -If it were possible capitalism would satisfy its appetite for surplus value without bringing into being these its inevitable, unwelcome com- panions. Working together, exploited together, organised together in their unions, the workers, looking no longer to the past but to the future, will together dig the grave of capitalism. READING.—Section 3 of Craik's Modern Work- ing Class Movement." Capital Vol. 1, chaps. 13 and 14 on "Co- operation and a masterly analysis of the effects of "The Division of Labour and Manufacture." Webbs' History of Trade Unionism," chaps. 1 and 2. MARK STARR. I