ANARCHY AND INDUSTRY.
THE two strikes in London, one in progress and the other happily now ended, following upon the recent strike at Leeds, are significant of the extremely disquieting state of mind among wage-earners. In Leeds we had a number of men, with no interests in common except that they were all employees of the Corporation, attempting to hold up the citizens to ransom. In London we have seen coal porters and carmen not merely refusing to submit their demand to arbitration, but for a time even refusing to go on working for a firm which had offered to surrender completely to their demands. Simultaneously we have the builders refusing to bind themselves individually to carry out an agreement which their Unions bad formally entered into on their behalf. In all these cases the men have adopted a course which must necessarily alienate public opinion and intensify the unfortunately growing bitterness between employers and employed. In the case of the Leeds strike the employer was the community itself, and the facts of that strike are peculiarly interesting because they show how completely the socialization of industry fails to secure content among manual workers. The case of the coal porters differed very little in principle, for the injury inflicted upon the community by the strike was at least as palpable as at Leeds. Moreover, the strikers themselves were aware that the worst sufferers from their action were people of their own class or people poorer than themselves. The middle classes and the upper classes have certainly not suffered nearly so much from the coal porters' strike as have the very poor. The well-to-do classes nearly always have consider- able cellar accommodation, and many of them filled their cellars before winter began, when they were able to buy at lower prices. The poor, on the other hand, have in most cases accommodation for only a very small quantity of coal. They must buy from hand to mouth, and as a result of the coal porters' strike many of them bad to pay cruel prices for coal, while others were forced to go without altogether. But the public, as the experience of Leeds shows, is not nearly so easily brought to its knees as the extremists of the Unions imagine. It has an enormous power of resist- ance. Even coal, though it is a necessary of life, is not so absolutely necessary, at any rate for the middle and upper classes, as the coal porters assumed. The gas fire and the electric radiator are alternatives of considerable value, and as long as coal can be obtained from the collieries the gas and electric companies will see to it that they get sufficient. As regards the poor, coke is an alternative on which many families are now falling back, and we venture to congratulate the gee companies on not having taken advantage of the greater demand to raise the price. Finally, as the experience of the last great colliery strike showed, there is generally a considerable margin for economy in consumption. Many families then discovered that they had previously been burning more coal than was necessary, and learned ways in which to economize. Of this we may be certain : that the community will always beat any group of producers, however well organized and how- ever determined.
The builders' strike, though it raises an altogether different issue, equally shows how the men are fighting, against their own interest. The trouble dates back to May of lust year, when the Unions agreed that they would' not permit a strike without due notice, and that they would not in any case strike against the employment of non-Union labour. Since that agreement was made there have been twenty different strikes against non-Union labour. As a result the employers have come to the conclusion that the only course left open to them is to make agreements with the individual workmen, and in order that these agreements may be effective they propose that any workman who breaks his agreement shall forfeit the sum of twenty shil- lings, to be deducted out of his wages. Whether it was wise to insert this condition we feel a little doubtful. On' its theoretic merits it is certainly justified. If a man makes a bargain, be ought not to have the slightest objection to agreeing to incur a penalty if he goes back on his word. In practice, however, there is a very bitter prejudice amongst wage-earners against any arrangement which bears the shape of a fine, and therefore it was almost certain that the majority of the workpeople would reject the proposed agreement merely on this ground.
We must admit frankly, on the other hand, that it is not easy to see how without some kind of penalty workmen are to be induced to observe any bargain at all in their present attitude of mind. Large sections' of the working classes appear at the moment to be inspired with an idea that the only way to improve their own position is by damaging somebody else. Nearly all their recent tactics are essentially a question of war. The Syndicalist workman wants to hit someone or something; and does not much care whom or what be hits. On such lines, it is hardly necessary to say, progress is impossible. Ultimately the only way of improving the position of the wage-earning classes is by increasing the demand for labour. The whole of the present policy of the Syndicalist and Socialist tends to diminish the demand for labour. At Leeds, for example, as a result of the recent strike, it has been discovered that by a reorganization of some of the municipal departments several hundred workmen can be dispensed with altogether. In every other instance, when a strike occurs, the employers and organizers of 'labour set to work to consider how they can diminish their labour bill by introducing more machinery or a better organization. Thus the immediate effect of a strike is to diminish the demand for labour. Ultimately, no doubt, the introduction of improved methods of working, so far as they lead to a cheapening of the product, will in turn lead to a renewed demand for labour. This is the necessary
consequence. But obviously it would be better if by some educational or moral campaign wage-earners could be brought to understand that it is only by rendering their labour more efficient that they can increase the demand for it. At present they are blindly fighting against what they regard, perhaps not with- put reason, as the cruelty of the world. They see other people enjoying a greater amount of comfort and luxury than their own wages will command. The apparent injustice of this contrast arouses their passionate indigna- tion, and naturally, though of course quite uselessly, instead of sitting down to think out a difficult economic problem, they hit out blindly. Nothing but misery results. The immediate effect of the strike is to pro- duce hardship in every striker's home, and in the home of every person whose industry is interrupted as the result of the strikers' action. When the strike is over, even if the men have won some small increase in wages, they are practically no better off than they were before, for they are loaded with a burden of debt incurred to the shop- keepers while the strike was in progress. It is useless, however, to put these arguments before men who have got beyond the point of reasoning about the causes of the troubles from which they suffer. Every- thing points at the present moment to the industrial situation growing worse rather than better in the near future. The Syndicalist doctrine is gaining ground owing to skilful advocacy, and at the same time there has not yet been sufficient general experience of the inevitable harm resulting from Syndicalist action. Most of us have to buy our experience, and wage-earners at the present moment are buying theirs at a very high price. All that employers on their part can do is to show patience and—we may add—generosity. Part of the present revolt of the wage-earning classes is due to irritation created by occasional instances of something approaching to sharp practice on the other side. There are a certain minority of employers who are too keen in driving a bargain with their workpeople. Admittedly in many cases where generosity has been shown it has only been met with suspicion, but that is inevitable when mutual relations are strained, and does not in the least prove that employers in their own interest, as well as in the wider interest of the whole community, ought not to be guided by considerations of generosity as much as by strictly business motives. What we have said above as to the folly of the wage-earning classes trying to improve their position by establishing a state of war equally applies to the employing classes. Ultimately as well as immediately the interest of both parties lies in peace, and the fact that the wage-earners under Syndicalist teaching are now passionately eager for war is all the more reason why employere should do everything in their power to promote peace and good feeling. They must not excuse themselves for yielding to the temptation to act hardly by indulging the thought: "They would never dream of showing mercy to us. Why, then, should we be merciful to them ? " On the employers is the obligation of noblesse oblige. They are better educated, they can see further, they understand the essential partnership existing between them and the workers. Therefore they must temper justice with mercy, even in the case of the unmerciful. They must be patient in well-doing. This does not, of course, mean that they must give way to every foolish demand made on them, but merely that they must never meet malice with malice, bad faith with cunning, or sharp practice with sharp practice.
Previous page
