TRADES’ UNIONS THEIR TENDENCIES. EDMUND POTTER, E.R.S. LONDON; JOHN CHAPMAN, KINO WILLIAM STREET, STRAND. Johnson and Rawson, Printers, 89, Market Street, Manchester. tvb ■ ’ ■ J'ixiqiy. ‘‘...'.-.Lj ic 'i . yMJK '-fevit ^ft-T--:.r.'La-T-,)f{ . . . ■ “n, . ., 33/. c? 7 PREFACE. I ^ The following pages were read in September last, at the Glasgow Social Science Meeting, with the object of calling forth an expression of opinion on the course pursued by the Committee on Trade Societies — a course the author thinks injurious to the cause of social progress and economical science, — from the ■^tendency of the opinions expressed in their report, 1 leading to the belief that trades and societies may ^ be bettered by organizations for the regulation of the supply of labour to particular occupations, at stated 2 periods, thus practically attempting to regulate or ^ keep balanced the rate of wages, whilst other com- ^modities — materials merely put together by labour — ^ are to be left to the natural rise and fall of prices ^ consequent on demand and supply. The writer i thinks the working classes may be elevated by Asso- I ciations, but they must be those not contravening sound economical laws — notfettering individual action, or lessening individual responsibility : —that the man B ^ (>0080 IV. must be elevated by meeting the variations and vicis- situdes of demand by a sounder forethought, and not by trying, by monopoly and union, to reserve certain employments for certain numbers, at high rates of remuneration, thus leaving, if such schemes were practicable, all the unorganized trades with the lesser share of the labour fund. The writer cannot but feel that any opinions, the result of enquiries on the subject of Trades’ Unions, made by such Committees, can lead to no sound conclusions. Combinations and Trades’ Unions, from their very nature, must have secret organizations and laws, which they are not likely ever to reveal. Week upon week the press records crimes and attempts of the blackest cast, which no individual ever thinks of justifying ; and yet these acts are in support of Trade Union schemes, and against those who dare to think and act for themselves. They are tacitly encouraged by unsound opinions on social economy. Associations, Trades’ Societies, Unions of Masters or Men for the regula- tion of wages, or the endeavour to control variable events, generally attempt to act by the power of monopoly and association, and seek to prevent compe- tition, — they act with weakened responsibility, and weakened morality. V. Trades’ Unions, by their very nature, are meant to be beneficial only to certain sections, and are perfectly reckless of other interests. Bricklayers and other trades may be starving in one town, and work stand- ing in another, and yet a secret organization prevents the very regulation of supply and demand they propose. The writer seeks only to enunciate what seem to him sound economical views; and, above all, to elevate the workman, to give him liberty and power to exercise his own individual will. He believes the division between the workman and the master class will be imperceptible, if education and forethought be allowed free play. The master class must be supplied from the workman’s ; and nothing can tend so much to prevent this healthy fusion, as unions formed to fetter both. The workman who, by ability and indus- try, finds power to raise himself out of his class, and who, in after life, in his higher position confers a lustre on his country, is not found recommending unions as a benefit to society. The writer does not object to discussion or to inquiry; but he does demur to the publication of one-sided and limited evidence, and, more than all, to conclusions being drawn from imperfect inquiries. VI. Why such inquiries are imperfect and must remain so, it has been his object to try to explain. He respects the motives of the Committee, — he cannot respect their po'wer and judgment, as he believes both to be totally inadequate to the inquiry they have undertaken. Manchestek, April, 1861. TEADES’ UNIONS. The Report presented to the Association at the Bradford meeting last year, from the Committee on Trade Societies, states, that they are convinced that no safe conclusion can be arrived at, except by induction from a very extensive body of facts;” and thus refer to the difficulties which lie in the way of obtaining such facts. — “ These obstacles arise mainly from two causes — 'indifference, and suspicion on the part of those who have the information to give ; the former of which is chiefly found amongst employers, the latter amongst workmen.” As one of the master-class, I must confess I have read these extracts with some anxiety, because I fear conclusions may be drawn, and hopes held out to one of the two parties, unsound and delusive ; and the more so, if based on admitted partial evidence — the opinions and wishes of the men who seek unions — G 8 and wanting the evidence from, or even the opinions of the masters, who are generally opposed to unions amongst themselves. The question as to the working and influence of trades’ unions upon the moral and commercial interests of individuals or communities, is not one that the capitalist or master-class can be personally indifi’erent about ; but I do not think they will be induced to expose their working details, or their private contracts and aflairs, to the records of a report. They will probably think the internal arrangements of their establishments, hours, mode of payment, or contract, no more the affairs of the public than the routine of a man’s own household. The law has interfered with the economy of certain occupations, simply because the magnitude of such establishments seemed to give warrant for placing them under public inspection, as a means of attempting a better physical and educational condition among certain classes of the people. As to how far this system of legal rather than moral responsibility ought to be carried, is certainly not a question of indifierence to the capitalist. Perhaps they may think that public morality will be better enforced by individual interest and moral responsibility, than by associations and 9 unions for controlling freedom of action ; and by active competition, rather than by a complex system of restriction. These reasons induce me to offer a few remarks on trades’ unions and their tendencies — more par- ticularly perhaps, their moral tendencies, and I prefer doing so in this form, because I feel myself compelled to decline replying to the questions submitted by your Committee to the employers of labour. The private affairs of an individual, and the operations of his trade or manufacture, are just those which he naturally feels ought not even to be enquired into — except from legislative necessity. Trades’ unions profess to give the opinions of their members. The master-class, in any trade, will not delegate their opinions ; and therefore any offered must be taken as those of the individual, and not of a class. Moreover, the conduct of individual establishments and opera- tions, and the consequent remuneration and treatment of hands, differ with the talent, capital, and opinions of the individual or the small partnership, just as much as do the practice of the medical man or the lawyer; and the remuneration varies almost in a similar degree. The profits of mental or pecuniary capital, depend upon the power and energy of the 10 individual possessors. No one would attempt dis- honestly to tax them, or to try to dispossess their owners of such profits, otherwise than, if possible, by a fair competition. This can, in my opinion, only be fairly carried on by individual competition. The hard mechanical union of a number of minds, tends at once to weaken and dilute their power, rather than strengthen it. The individual, having mind above his fellows, the result of his work and thought, seeks his private reward and profit ; and every attempt to make him share, or lessen it, by any fettering combination as a competing power, will certainly make him more chary of even affording an example, which he is made to feel is regarded as rather a matter of envy than of imitation. Strikes I consider as the action and the almost inevitable result, of commercial bargaining for labour. They will always exist, but their operation will be softened and rationalized by education and sound views ; and to my mind only by such a process, and wfith entire freedom between buyer and seller. When intimidation or force is used to compel a bargain by either side, it becomes criminal, and ought to be treated as such. The conclusion I wish to arrive at and keep in 11 mind is, that labour must be considered as a mere purchaseable article, like all other commodities, and ought to be bought and sold, and weighed and measured accordingly ; that the honest fulfilment of contracts ought to he rigidly adhered to ; and that all the law ought to do, so far as the adult is con- cerned, is to define the standard of measure and currency to be used. I believe this is a sound eco- nomical doctrine, and therefore, in practice, soundly benevolent. The contest is assumed to be between the owners of capital, and the mere seller of physical labour. The prime moving power must he the mind or will of the purchaser of labour — he it is who seeks the worker, states his wishes, offers the contract, and directs the mode of operation. We may assume that he is the more highly educated, and consequently the more moral and benevolent, and that he, as a rule, more strictly fulfils his contract. I assert this as no reflec- tion on the workman ; but as an inevitable fact, the result of higher intellectual position. This I know may be demurred to ; — and I may be told that it is for the purpose of supporting against such views the weaker and less educated, that many benevolent parties think that some sort of power, controlled by 12 some code of rules, should be given to trade combi- nations — thus more equally and beneficially balancing the bargaining parties. We may conclude, that there can be no other ground for interference, than the supposition of the helplessness of one of the parties. Admitting that society at present seems to force such a division as that of capitalist and labourer, what is the cause of the supposed helplessness of the one party ? Let me try to ascertain it by contrasting the two. The merchant capitalist really fixes the rate of labour — he carries with him the moving power. He frequently lies beyond the master manufacturer, and having his capital unfixed in plant or machinery, is perfectly free to withhold his purchases till the price accommodates itself to his wish. If, then, a trade union, or even a combination of trade unions, tries to force the capita- list, he opposes them at a fearful disadvantage to the workman. He can employ his capital elsewhere during the contest. True, it may disarrange his business, and he may get less for such capital ; still he can always employ it at some rate of interest. The ten thousand or one hundred pounds, if not yielding so much per centage, may be kept intact during the struggle. The labourer, on the contrary, fixed to a 13 certain district; fixed still more by his union ; fettered again by the want of savings, wages a most unequal contest with the capitalist employer in any strike. He naturally fancies he can gain strength by union. If he succeeds against a weak, small capitalist master, he keeps his employer down nearly to his own level, and presents to the world the picture exhibited in such places as where the unions are strong and wickedly immoral, seeking to enforce a higher rate of wages by violence and terror — destroying (indirectly by instigation at least) machinery, reck- less of their own health, and successful according to their own idea, because they have prevented capital accumulating, and lessened the power of the master. Most assuredly none will be tempted there by the offer of the sale of such labour. I would venture to assert that where the unions are the strongest and have the most power, there the men are the most unthrifty, and the population most degraded. Where also, labour forms a large component part of a trade, and there is least mechanical power and capital, the same spectacle is exhibited. Where trades’ unions rule, responsibility and self- reliance are delegated, and you have invariably a lower moral tone — in fact, the weaker morality of 14 association rather than that of individual and direct responsibility. If there be truth and soundness in these opinions — and I do not doubt that they are capable of easy proof by glaring facts, — does it not behove associations like this to be more than careful before they recommend, even by sympathy, the substi- tution of union for individual action. Many of the evils of society are caused hy the demarcation of classes; the constant struggle of sections to maintain by each, assumed rights for selfish purposes. The competition is one for power ; not for excellence or progress, but the reverse, and to prevent change. Unions of all kinds (and more particularly so when confined to trades) necessarily become narrow and sectional — their laws and rules are for their union — their class only — and are made without reference to the good of society at large. A recent, and a very practical example, of the work- ing of trade unions for utterly selfish purposes, occurs to me. The carrying out of free trade legislation, in connection with the French treaty, has led to the repeal of the duty on the importation of silk goods. The Coventry workmen are suffering under the change, — a change for the benefit of the entire people, if it gives a cheaper supply. There is at present a surplus supply 15 of cheap labour at Coventry : there is no capital there ready to purchase it. That labour would naturally, if it had the means, transport itself to a better market, where capital seeks to purchase. The market exists, and means are found by the aid of charity ; and a number of the workers go to Blackburn, where the rate of wages for not more skilled labour, — for females more particularly, — is probably double the rate of the Coventry scale ; and what is the result ? The Black- burn unions, with a reckless inhumanity, seek to prevent the poor Coventry weavers, who are suffering by legal changes (and by no fault of their own) for the good of society, from settling amongst them — they are driven again into the wide world, by threat and intimidation. I believe there is scarcely an individual workman in Blackburn, (members, mind, of the Union,) doing or applauding the deed, who would not be thoroughly ashamed, in his private capacity, of driving his starving brother from his door ; nay, I believe the unionist who is doing this, would, if unfettered and using his own honest judgment, under other circumstances, share his loaf with the stranger, and have and exercise that humanity, which the working classes, to their credit be it spoken, possess even to a greater degree than the wealthier. 16 The power of the trades’ union, then, robs (for I can use no milder term) the worker of his right to sell, and robs the capitalist of his right to purchase. The union does what in the individual would be thorough dishonesty : and by the influence of a union only, could such things he done. I am not yet willing to think that by counteracting unions of masters, such things should be prevented. All protective combinations arise from jealousy, fear, and weakness ; and the question ought to be, what is the cause of that fear and weakness ? I would utter no unkindly word of blame, but I must draw conclusions from facts. The labourer is not the capitalist he might he. Two-thirds of the working class might save — not one-third does save; hence their want of power, and their anxiousness for protective combinations. Most assuredly the sound capitalist, be he the owner of fifty, or fifty thousand pounds, is the independent man. He can think and operate as he likes, and he can do both coolly, main- taining his individual judgment. The unionist can do neither ; he must move even to direct misery by the will of the multitude, the very large majority of whom may he less educated, and less thoughtful than himself. I have stated that the workers generally do 17 not save. Many hardly can — more do not. It is the first step to power. I wish them to have power, based upon and secured by forethought and self-respect. We know that strikes produce terrible and imme- diate misery; would they do so if the parties con- cerned in them had, as a rule, any savings ? — ought a six or ten weeks’ cessation of labour to produce such immediate starvation, if there had only been common prudence and foresight previously? — I think not. Eeferring to the last builders’ strike, within a very few weeks thousands were in a state of starvation, and would have more rapidly been so but for the support afibrded to them throughout the country. Yet who will deny that the builders are not a very poor class. Who will deny that they ought to have saved ? and yet I believe it to be the fact that they withdrew literally no savings from the savings’ banks. Ought such men to appeal to their fellows for aid, for a self-inflicted misery on themselves and their families ? If it was right that they should have taken such a step, (I do not here say it was right or wrong,) should they not have prepared for it by long previous preparation and by savings ? Would any man possessing mental inde- pendence, place himself under such private obligation, and stoop to live upon such charity ? — I think 18 not. Savings are, I may say, very early spent in maintaining a strike — at all events we learn one fact, that strikes produce immediate misery, and show no private funds to fall back upon. Take a somewhat wider view of the working- classes, one not limited to trade unions. I remember, during the panic of 1857 and 1858, thousands upon thousands, in certain previously well-doing districts, being reduced to a very short supply of work for many weeks, and yet there was no such misery shewn as many strikes have caused. There was a considerable withdrawal of funds from the savings* bank, and the very slightest pressure upon the poor- rates ! Many of us can look back upon the restrictive influence of trade unions on individual progress. The writer could point out men in more trades than one who have sacrificed the advancement of a life to the narrow subjection of a trade union — from the most honourable motives in some cases, I am willing to admit — in most, I am afraid, from bodily fear, and from a want of moral courage. First-class workmen have consented to abide by a uniform rate of wages ; masters have been restricted, and compelled to take bad and good together. Average workmen. 19 of course, in every trade, being the majority, have fixed the rate of wages; and the result has been to the trade, the body, that the whole amount paid has not been equal to what it would have been if no combination had existed, and a natural level had been permitted. The bad, perhaps the idle work- man, has received above his share, and the skilled hand has been kept on a flat level for the best of his working years ; his energy and his rewards for exertion and discovery, have been kept down. Many such men might have risen to the master class ; nay, the mere money difference they might have received if saved during a period perhaps of twenty years, might have placed them in a condition of comfortable independence for life. They have sacrificed this from what seemed to them a right motive. They have not received the reward of their own talent, but have given a premium and encouragement to restriction, sluggishness, and unsound opinions. Keferring to the remark in the Eeport of the master’s indifference as to the cause of strikes, I believe it to arise from the conviction, that the fact of his being a purchaser of labour, a saleable and trans- ferable commodity, ought not to subject his tran- sactions to the special interference of third parties. 20 The condition and education of the present genera- tion of the working class, and the amount of general information diffused amongst them by the wide circulation of a cheap and free press, make them now, if they wish it, as honestly independent of the master class, as does competition between buyers and sellers of other commodities. Practically, unless demand and consequent supply can be kept level for all classes of labour, it must prove itself a commodity, and sink or rise in value. The knowledge which the dealer in many com- modities possesses in a higher degree than the simple seller of one, warns him to lighten the market of his wares, or to cheapen his power of production by labour applied to machinery. Combinations, trade unions of every class, try to prevent and counteract this healthy process. They try to substitute narrower, and less educated views and judgment for the judg- ment and information of the capitalist. We are gravely told by one who had been concerned in a very extensive and ruinous turn-out, that they (the workers) did not conceive strikes would again be necessary, as increased knowledge would now enable them to ask and claim fairly, their share of the increased profits in the cotton trade. He 21 hardly gave evidence of that knowledge when he failed to state how the rate of wages was to be settled in a falling market, much less how, in a losing trade, the workman could bear his share of loss. In smaller concerns where, perhaps, only few hands are employed, the workman shares more frequently the vicissitudes of his employer — neither party saves, and the capital which could sustain employment in the flat season is wanting. The workman, as a rule, consumes his wages ; he leaves no savings to form capital as security ; nay, if he were a fair partner getting nothing when nothing was earned, starvation or the workhouse would be his doom during every time of panic and stagnation. Kebellion would be the result of such policy if fairly carried out. No fair bargain which could compel saving, prudence, and foresight is meant, but a part- nership of necessity limited to a share of profit only. Agreements of this class could not be made compulsory — voluntarily they never will be made — nor could they be beneficial. The partners could not by any process be brought to such a level, intellectually or pecuniarily, as to enable them to find a basis for a division of profits. The individual, having perhaps neither' education nor capital, has no moral right to 22 claim a partnership with the master who may have both — both, it may be, by virtue of having exercised faculties common to most but unexercised by many. The success of all private concerns — and more particularly of those larger ones which are constantly looked upon by the unsound philanthropist class, as those which ought to be shared in by the workman — is mainly owing to the energetic employment and the working of saved capital, and not to large profits. If the workmen choose to use their small savings, they can now avail themselves of partnerships in almost every trade, under the limited liability act ; — I do not say with a promise of success, because I have no faith that, except in very exceptional cases, they will be successful in competing with individual energy and capital. Let them try ; — they have had the right to do so conferred by the Legislature — with the boon, I think an unfair one, of competing with individuals who, like themselves, do not possess a limited responsibility. It is worse than idle, in my opinion, to try to force a community of interests where competition — as in every other case — alone can give progress. Masters and men are buyers and sellers : the more simple and definite the terms, and the shorter the payments, the better. The more independent of each other the better: the fairer the bargain will be. Better an independent dealer and trader with his master, than an undefined and ignorant partner. The intelligent capitalist will never be fettered, or submit to the shadow of a part- nership, or to any watching or control over his move- ments — why should he ? A good master — an honest, intelligent, fair dealing man — will secure good work- men, just as a cheap, good-measure-giving shop, will get customers. I am anxious to show that the same unsoundness must attach itself to every purely trade union, whether it be one merely for the purpose of a burial or sick club, or for the regulation of numbers, hours, or wages, or for the enforcement of partnerships. Once form the union, and the executive — supported by the mere majority, — that majority naturally the least edu- cated, the least capable by individual energy to pro- tect themselves — will seek to exercise a retarding influence. I may be told that, for a decaying trade — one in the course of being supplanted by machinery — union is desirable to soften the change. I believe in such a case union only leads to greater mischief, and tends to aggra\. te the process. The individual can act quickly, and meet the change. Trades’ 24 unions have ever, naturally, opposed the introduction of machinery — such introduction tending, apparently, to reduce the amount of manual labour needed, and thus pressing upon the majority. No trade union ever encouraged invention. Hun- dreds of inventions are not used, simply because trade unions are strong enough to deter individuals from commencing a contest with such bodies. We will take the single instance of brick-makingmachines, opposed by the very lowest class of labourers, brick- makers — men irregularly employed, and thriftless in the extreme. Millions of bad and inferior bricks are annually made, and society suffers, and an inferior class of artizans is protected and encouraged, — and by whom ? By a class nearly as uneducated — the brick- layers, — who refuse to use better machine-made bricks, by doing which the majority of their own skilled work- men might receive better wages : — society is thus in every way injured. The power for such mischief is gained by a union to support one of the lowest trades. Unfortunately, the working man continues in almost every trade, in policy or feeling at least, the unionist. Though much better educated than for- merly — knowing the folly of trying to retard the progress of machinery, and admitting the crime and 25 immorality of so doing, still he naturally clings to his order, and acts with them. The factory system, from its subdivision of labour, and its large substitution of automaton and self-acting machinery, with all its advantages, may make even the most intelligent and thoughtful workman fearful of any change which may bring with it a lessened demand for his hand power ; but the machine cannot be kept stationary, and his true interest is to move with the times. To my mind, one of the most mischievous fallacies of the day is the idea that labourers have the power to form successful and useful combinations; that the struggle against these combinations will cease ; that masters will voluntarily give all that had hitherto been tried by force to obtain from them ; and that, between employers and employed, the relations will be those of a voluntary partnership. This is to be brought about as soon as unions extend to all sections of the labouring classes, high and low, of course ; the occur- rence of strikes is to be then less frequent ; and, as an ultimate consequence, to cease altogether. I should wish to draw a strong distinction between associations for competitive trade purposes, or for national ones, and trades’ unions, which I consider as so many unsound monopolies. . Associations are 26 voluntary, not entered into from fear, but from fore- thought and for progress. Unions are entered into from class-feeling, from a want of moral courage, and - for restriction ; and I know of no instance in which their leaders have been — like the leaders of many associations — men before their time, and to whom society at large has been indebted. I may be told that my opinions are coldly those of the capitalist and master class, and that there is little in them of that feeling which a higher social position ought to exhibit for the larger mass of society — the workman’s class. I cannot assent to this opinion ; I feel it to be unsound. I have endeavoured to shew' the bad moral effects of what I consider an unsound means of attempting to raise a class by protective and aggressive combinations. My great object is to shew, for the benefit, I contend, of man as well as of master, that the naturally envied power and blessings of the latter, can only be gained — earned, I might have said — by knowledge and industry, as every master risen from the working class can testify. No trade union, no system of combination, no protective monopoly, has ever really benefitted a people ; it may have benefitted temporally a small class ; or an individual, wrongfully so, because the public, the mass, have been injured. 27 My opinions do not tend to shelter my class — the masters— by combination against competition. We advise competition. We say education and industry are the best securities, the only ones for individual and national progress. Education will give the mass greater competitive power, and v/e (those who think with me) encourage it, admitting that we have no other rights than those of leading, if we can, by superior acquirements ; if not falling, as we shall, into the rear of a fair contest, whilst the fresh blood of a newer generation comes to the front. The conclusion I come to is, that trade unions are founded for an unsound purpose; that, consequently, their moral effects are bad; that society can be best aided by free and open competition ; and that educa- tion and forethought alone can secure to every one his fair reward. Johnson and Kawson, Printers, Manchester.