By mid-century, Britain was known as the “Workshop of the World” due to its immense lead in industrialisation. Out of this situation were born two classes of people, as Marx called them, the bourgeoisie, those who owned and profited from the new means of production, and the proletariat, the working-class, those who operated the machinery and laboured in the factories of the bourgeoisie creating the wealth enjoyed by the middle-class factory owners.
Also running almost parallel to the advancement of the middle-classes came the formation of trade unions chiefly among the skilled craft workers initially who were very snobbish and protective of their organisations from the unskilled workers. Some of these craft unions, like the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (ASE) saw themselves almost on parity with the employers. On their Sundays off many a time an Engineer out in their Sunday best would be mistaken for an employer. The ASE had a slogan; “Defence not Defiance” meaning defend what we have and not be antagonistic towards the bosses. The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners (ASCJ) took a similar attitude, and both would have nothing to do with their unskilled class brethren. Many craftsmen did not see themselves as part of the working-class, even though they sold their labour power to an employer in return for a monetary wage, making them, whether they liked it or not, part of the proletariat.
Later in the century this state of affairs was to change dramatically as a concept known as “New Unionism” took hold among the unskilled workers. Between the early part of the century and the rise of unskilled trade unionism many other reforms and Acts took place in the parliament of the United Kingdom.
The use of child labour in the factories was prevalent in the early part of the nineteenth century and much concern, relative to the times, was voiced in various quarters about the exploitation by factory owners of women and children in their labour force. So much so that in 1819 the Factories Act of that year was introduced and passed in parliament. The Act stated “no child under the age of nine shall be employed and a maximum twelve hours per day can be worked by children under the age of sixteen”. This may sound trivial by today’s standards but relative to the early nineteenth century such a passing of an Act can only be viewed as progressive. Beware the standards of today, which are creeping clandestinely backwards, do not return to the early days of industrialisation in a post-modern form!
The use of child labour in the factories was prevalent in the early part of the nineteenth century and much concern, relative to the times, was voiced in various quarters about the exploitation by factory owners of women and children in their labour force. So much so that in 1819 the Factories Act of that year was introduced and passed in parliament. The Act stated “no child under the age of nine shall be employed and a maximum twelve hours per day can be worked by children under the age of sixteen”. This may sound trivial by today’s standards but relative to the early nineteenth century such a passing of an Act can only be viewed as progressive. Beware the standards of today, which are creeping clandestinely backwards, do not return to the early days of industrialisation in a post-modern form!
Under the 1833 Factories Act employers were forced to have a certificate covering their child employees ages, stating their ages and hours worked. Under this Act children aged nine to thirteen were not allowed to work over twelve hours per day. There could be no night working for children and two hours per day compulsory education must be provided. This suited the bourgeoisie, as a class, because as their machinery developed in technology the level of intelligence of those operating said machinery would also have to develop. Being able to read the instructions of the equipment, for example, was becoming imperative. Therefore, the educating of the children was important and the learning to read was usually done by using certain selected texts from the Bible, no surprise there!!
The 1844 Factories Act could be described as the first health and safety law in Britain. Laws regarding the safety of workers operating machinery were enacted and women and children over the age of thirteen could not work more than twelve hours per day. Children aged nine to thirteen could no longer work more than six and a half hours per day and three hours schooling had to be provided. Known as the “Ten Hours Act”, the 1847 Factories Act restricted the hours of women and children aged thirteen to eighteen years in Textile Mills to ten hours maximum. The 1867 Factories Act extended all the Acts to establishments employing fifty or more employees. This was also extended to “workshops” employing less than fifty workers. This Act was to be administered by the local authority rather than the Factory Inspectorate.
The 1878 Factory and Workshop Act replaced all previous Acts, sixteen in all, by a single Act of some 107 clauses. The Chief Inspectorate of Factories described this Act as “far less restrictive” than the legislation it replaced. There were many other amendments and smaller Acts in between the ones very briefly described here and prior to the 1878 Act. Further reading on the 1878 Factory and Workshop Act, and parts still relevant, essential for shop stewards. These Acts were on the surface to benefit the workers, particularly women and children and to a point they did.
The 1878 Factory and Workshop Act replaced all previous Acts, sixteen in all, by a single Act of some 107 clauses. The Chief Inspectorate of Factories described this Act as “far less restrictive” than the legislation it replaced. There were many other amendments and smaller Acts in between the ones very briefly described here and prior to the 1878 Act. Further reading on the 1878 Factory and Workshop Act, and parts still relevant, essential for shop stewards. These Acts were on the surface to benefit the workers, particularly women and children and to a point they did.
However, like all aspects of bourgeois society there is a flip side to the coin. The factory owners needed an educated or at least semi-literate workforce and one which could be blamed for their own actions, especially if those actions were deemed to have caused an accident, usually due to employer’s negligence, thus preventing any stigma for the bosses. The Factory Inspectors appointed under the 1933 Act were always far too few and made little impact on the working conditions of the child workers. Employers were usually forewarned of a visit so provisions could be temporarily put in place to cover their arses. All the same, and again relative to the times, the Acts certainly for child labour must be seen as progressive.
Ironically an Irish MP, Daniel O’Connell, the so-called “Liberator” for some strange reason opposed the Factory Act of 1833. His opposition was based on the children would be a burden on their parents if their hours of work were reduced by law. This was not untypical of many who argued against the Act using language and arguments common to the time, ridiculous as they may sound today. Perhaps in typical Christian fashion the “Liberator” would have had kids working, it would be imagined, twenty-four hours per day six and a half days per week, the half day off on a Sunday to go to church and listen to some pontificating sanctimonious priest or equivalent rant on about the virtues of being good, then practising the complete opposite. This was in sharp contrast to Daniel O’Connell’s verbal and written opposition to slavery in the USA, something he opposed vehemently.
In 1868 the Trades Union Congress (TUC) was formed holding its first meeting in the Mechanics Institute, Manchester. The Congress, in those early days was exclusively made up of the craft unions, such as the ASE and ASJC to name but two. This would remain the case until the rise in the 1880s of “New Unionism” when late in that decade the unskilled workers began in earnest to make their mark.
Throughout the nineteenth century various Parliamentary Reform Acts were introduced. Perhaps the best known of these is the misleadingly termed “Great Reform Act” 1832. This was and is sometimes referred to as “the year of the great betrayal” because the middle-classes sold out the majority working-class. Up until that time neither received the vote and bosses and workers campaigned together for the franchise. The industrialists were given the vote that year but not, of course, their erstwhile allies, the proletariat. Another case of the rich selling out the poor, and a reason why any future class alliances must be rejected. The industrialists had the majority of the wealth, created by the labour power of the workers, while the aristocracy held most of the land. From their point of view, it made sense to form a political alliance between the landed gentry and industrial bourgeoisie.
Ironically an Irish MP, Daniel O’Connell, the so-called “Liberator” for some strange reason opposed the Factory Act of 1833. His opposition was based on the children would be a burden on their parents if their hours of work were reduced by law. This was not untypical of many who argued against the Act using language and arguments common to the time, ridiculous as they may sound today. Perhaps in typical Christian fashion the “Liberator” would have had kids working, it would be imagined, twenty-four hours per day six and a half days per week, the half day off on a Sunday to go to church and listen to some pontificating sanctimonious priest or equivalent rant on about the virtues of being good, then practising the complete opposite. This was in sharp contrast to Daniel O’Connell’s verbal and written opposition to slavery in the USA, something he opposed vehemently.
In 1868 the Trades Union Congress (TUC) was formed holding its first meeting in the Mechanics Institute, Manchester. The Congress, in those early days was exclusively made up of the craft unions, such as the ASE and ASJC to name but two. This would remain the case until the rise in the 1880s of “New Unionism” when late in that decade the unskilled workers began in earnest to make their mark.
Throughout the nineteenth century various Parliamentary Reform Acts were introduced. Perhaps the best known of these is the misleadingly termed “Great Reform Act” 1832. This was and is sometimes referred to as “the year of the great betrayal” because the middle-classes sold out the majority working-class. Up until that time neither received the vote and bosses and workers campaigned together for the franchise. The industrialists were given the vote that year but not, of course, their erstwhile allies, the proletariat. Another case of the rich selling out the poor, and a reason why any future class alliances must be rejected. The industrialists had the majority of the wealth, created by the labour power of the workers, while the aristocracy held most of the land. From their point of view, it made sense to form a political alliance between the landed gentry and industrial bourgeoisie.
In 1867 a second electoral reform act was passed. This Act enfranchised for the first time a limited number of the urban male working-class in England and Wales. The Act gave the vote to a further one million males making the total electorate in England and Wales 2,000,000. In 1884 the 1867 Act was extended from the boroughs to the countryside. Under Gladstones Bill all males paying an annual rent of £10 along with all those holding land valued at £10 or more would now have the vote. The Bill was passed and became an Act. This took the size of the electorate to 5,550,000 in England and Wales. Most males and all females still did not receive the vote despite Gladstone's reforms, considered radical for the times.
On the industrial front the plight of the unskilled workers was simmering. At one of Britain’s most notorious sweatshops in Bow East London, the women working at Bryant and Mays Match-stalk factory were ready to strike. This was a heroic thing to do as managerial practices in such industries in those days were harsh to say the least. Apart from the fact all the workers were women, a novelty and bold move not only for working-class rights but also women’s emancipation as a whole and an event which should be saluted and certainly remembered more than it is. The strike also inspired confidence in other groups of unskilled workers, not least the London Dockers who the following year took strike action themselves. The strike at Bryant and May (sometimes belittlingly called the “Matchgirls Strike”) was an inspiration to others. The working conditions suffered by these women were horrific and life shortening. Many, in fact most, would suffer a deliberating disease called “Phossy Jaw” an occupational disease which turned attractive young women into deformed and dying human beings.
Socialist activist, Annie Bessant, and her colleague Herbert Burrows, became involved in the situation at the factory and published an article in her halfpenny weekly paper The Link on 23rd June 1888. Management at the factory tried to force the women employed there to sign a piece of paper contradicting Bessant’s article, which they refused to do. Management then dismissed a worker, on some other trumped-up pretext, which set off the strike as 1,400 women and girls refused to carry on working. By the end of the following day the entire workforce was out on strike. The management at Bryant and May then offered to reinstate the sacked worker but this proved too little too late. The women then demanded other concessions, in particular the unfair fines system which deducted by the bosses from the women’s wages for the most trivial of offences.
On the industrial front the plight of the unskilled workers was simmering. At one of Britain’s most notorious sweatshops in Bow East London, the women working at Bryant and Mays Match-stalk factory were ready to strike. This was a heroic thing to do as managerial practices in such industries in those days were harsh to say the least. Apart from the fact all the workers were women, a novelty and bold move not only for working-class rights but also women’s emancipation as a whole and an event which should be saluted and certainly remembered more than it is. The strike also inspired confidence in other groups of unskilled workers, not least the London Dockers who the following year took strike action themselves. The strike at Bryant and May (sometimes belittlingly called the “Matchgirls Strike”) was an inspiration to others. The working conditions suffered by these women were horrific and life shortening. Many, in fact most, would suffer a deliberating disease called “Phossy Jaw” an occupational disease which turned attractive young women into deformed and dying human beings.
Socialist activist, Annie Bessant, and her colleague Herbert Burrows, became involved in the situation at the factory and published an article in her halfpenny weekly paper The Link on 23rd June 1888. Management at the factory tried to force the women employed there to sign a piece of paper contradicting Bessant’s article, which they refused to do. Management then dismissed a worker, on some other trumped-up pretext, which set off the strike as 1,400 women and girls refused to carry on working. By the end of the following day the entire workforce was out on strike. The management at Bryant and May then offered to reinstate the sacked worker but this proved too little too late. The women then demanded other concessions, in particular the unfair fines system which deducted by the bosses from the women’s wages for the most trivial of offences.
Annie Beasant helped arrange meetings between the women and management and soon terms were formulated at a meeting on 16th July 1888. It was agreed by management that the fines system, the unfair deductions for the cost of materials and other trivialities would be abolished. Also, and very important - in fact crucial - it was agreed meals would be taken in a separate room to prevent the food becoming contaminated with phosphorus, a major cause of Phossy Jaw. Phosphorus was used to tip the matches by the workers and was the chief cause of the disease and other deliberating illnesses like various cancers. These terms were accepted and the strike ended. The events of June and July 1888 gave other unskilled workers great confidence and, not for the first time, the initiative was taken by women. “New Unionism” the organisation of the unskilled workers was now well underway and the days of the craft unions and tradesmen’s snobbery within the broader trade union movement were coming to a close.
In 1889, 100,000 London dockers came out on strike, buoyed up by the result achieved a year earlier by the women workers at Bryant and May. The strike began on 14th August lasting until the 16th September and was only possible due to contributions from other unskilled workers around the globe, including dockers in Australia. The strike began due to the employers at the East and West Indian Docks Company (E+WIDC) trying to cut “plus” money. This cash was effectively paid as a kind of bonus to dockers for completing work quickly, usually unloading ships. The company were trying to attract more ships into their docks due to being cheaper than elsewhere. This could only by achieved in one of two ways. Either the employers took a small hit in profits, out of the question, or the dockers had their “plus” cut. The employers opted to effectively cut the worker’s wages, already a pittance.
In 1889, 100,000 London dockers came out on strike, buoyed up by the result achieved a year earlier by the women workers at Bryant and May. The strike began on 14th August lasting until the 16th September and was only possible due to contributions from other unskilled workers around the globe, including dockers in Australia. The strike began due to the employers at the East and West Indian Docks Company (E+WIDC) trying to cut “plus” money. This cash was effectively paid as a kind of bonus to dockers for completing work quickly, usually unloading ships. The company were trying to attract more ships into their docks due to being cheaper than elsewhere. This could only by achieved in one of two ways. Either the employers took a small hit in profits, out of the question, or the dockers had their “plus” cut. The employers opted to effectively cut the worker’s wages, already a pittance.
Many dockers had joined the huge national union, the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers Union (D.W.R.G.L.U) which included noted organisers Ben Tillet, Tom Mann and John Burns in their ranks. Tillet and Burns would represent the dockers in negotiations and a successful outcome. They brought out other groups of dock workers, the Stevedores and Gas workers bringing the number of men on strike to over 130,000. After negotiations the strike resulted in a rise of a Tanner (Sixpence in old money) often known as the “Dockers Tanner”.
The strike was another victory for organised unskilled labour, the march of the unskilled was becoming relentless. Later that year the TUC accepted unskilled unions into their ranks much to the reluctant acceptance of the craft unions. The tide had changed and the two milestones were the Bryant and May strike of 1888 and the dockers strike the following year. This trend would continue into the 20th century with the rise of the shop steward’s movement at rank- and file level. Today the shop stewards are the backbone of any trade union.
As the modern employers in Ireland and Britain try clandestinely to turn the clock back regarding worker’s rights and union recognition the trade union movement should, in my view, prepare for another titanic fight with the employers. Sometimes the bosses are not as covert in their tactics often testing the water to see what the unions response will be. On the London Underground and national mainline railway network Mick Lynch and the RMT have recently given them their answer. There is no reason why the modern trade union movement should be caught napping - the employers have been regrouping for years.
The strike was another victory for organised unskilled labour, the march of the unskilled was becoming relentless. Later that year the TUC accepted unskilled unions into their ranks much to the reluctant acceptance of the craft unions. The tide had changed and the two milestones were the Bryant and May strike of 1888 and the dockers strike the following year. This trend would continue into the 20th century with the rise of the shop steward’s movement at rank- and file level. Today the shop stewards are the backbone of any trade union.
As the modern employers in Ireland and Britain try clandestinely to turn the clock back regarding worker’s rights and union recognition the trade union movement should, in my view, prepare for another titanic fight with the employers. Sometimes the bosses are not as covert in their tactics often testing the water to see what the unions response will be. On the London Underground and national mainline railway network Mick Lynch and the RMT have recently given them their answer. There is no reason why the modern trade union movement should be caught napping - the employers have been regrouping for years.
In Britain after the defeat back in 1985 of the Coal Miners, and as Arthur Scargill warned, the employers have been out to capitalise on Thatcher’s victory and totally destroy organised labour. There is absolutely no reason to expect the employers in Ireland will not do exactly the same. The unions, large and small, should be prepared: build strike funds, watch points because the unions in Ireland have also had to fight bitter battles in the past. The 1913/14 Dublin Lockout springs to mind as perhaps the best known, but that was not the only confrontation, far from it!
To understand today, it is important to view events through the lens of history, as these events have a terrible habit of recurring in a modern form. Zero hours contracts, for example: an exercise in how to have workers available to work without having to pay them any wages if they are not required. If such a scheme would have been even said in jest back in my dad's day, the sixties and seventies, the joker would have either been laughed out of the depot or, and perhaps more likely, reprimanded by the union as possibly giving management ideas. Back in those days no employer would have dared try such a scam, but today they are more than happy to do so!!
 |
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist |
read recently about a plaque unveiled in honour of the Matchgirls' strike. The union movement in Ireland is not in a healthy state. The Industrial Relations Act has put leaders as leeches onto its body and they drain it of what radical potential it once possessed. Apart from Unite within the ICTU and the IWU outside it, there doesn't seem to be much sign of a commitment to a Progressive Left project.
ReplyDelete