Chapter 382: , Laws of 1889, to read as follows (25)

In the summer of 1900 a strike of employés of the Taff Vale
Railway Company occurred, which lasted only a fortnight or
thereabouts, but had large and important consequences. During
the strike the Company applied for an injunction to restrain
two officers of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants
from interfering as such with the affairs of the road. The
Society opposed the application, on the ground that it was not
a corporation or an individual and could not be sued. Justice
Farwell, before whom the case came, held that a trade union
was a corporate body, responsible for illegal acts committed
by its officers. This decision was a serious menace to the
unions generally, and they cooperated extensively with the
Amalgamated Society in carrying an appeal to the higher
courts. The case was argued in the Court of Appeals in
November, 1900, and the justices of that court reversed the
decision of Justice Farwell. The plaintiff in the suit, the
Railway Company, then carried it to the tribunal of last
resort, the House of Lords, and there, in July, 1902, the
judgment of the Court of Appeals was set aside and that of
Justice Farwell was sustained, making it the law of Great
Britain, that a trade union is a legal entity, capable of
suing and being sued. On this decision the Taff Vale Railway
Company brought suit against the Amalgamated Society for
damages, and obtained a verdict on the 20th of December which
awarded the Company £28,000.

A strenuous endeavor to overcome the effect of the decision
rendered by the House of Lords, through amendatory
legislation, was begun by the Labor Party, with strong
sympathy among the Liberals, and it had success. An Act (which
became law on the 21st of December, 1906) "to provide for the
regulation of Trades Unions and Trade Disputes," added the
following "as a new paragraph after the first paragraph of
section three of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property
Act, 1875":

"An act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by
two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation or
furtherance of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the
act, if done without any such agreement or combination, would
be actionable."

Further provisions of the new Act were as follows:

"2.
It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their
own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual
employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade
dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person
resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, if
they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining
or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any
person to work or abstain from working. …

{374}

"3.
An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a
trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that
it induces some other person to break a contract of employment
or that it is an interference with the trade, business, or
employment of some other person, or with the right of some
other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he
wills.

"4.
(1) An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or
masters, or against any members or officials thereof on behalf
of themselves and all other members of the trade union in
respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by
or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by
any court.

(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the
trustees of a trade union to be sued in the events provided
for by the Trades Union Act, 1871, section nine, except in
respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the
union in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute.

LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1903.
Political effect of the Taff Vale Decision of the
House of Lords, stimulating the growth of the Labor Party.

The Taff Vale Decision rendered by the House of Lords gave an
immediate great impetus to the growth and the independence of
the Labor Party, pledged by a resolution adopted at a "Labor
Representation Conference" held in February, 1903, to insist
that Labor candidates and Labor Members of Parliament when
elected should "strictly abstain from identifying themselves
with the interests of any section of the Liberal or
Conservative parties," holding themselves free to act solely
for the purpose of "securing the social and economic
requirements of the industrial classes." The same conference
took action for the creation of a fund for the payment of
Labor Members of Parliament and for assisting in the payment
of election expenses. The effects of the movement were soon
felt in Parliamentary elections.

See (in this Volume),
SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.

LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1906 (March).
Report of Royal Commission on Labor Disputes.

A Royal Commission on Labor Disputes, appointed in England in
1903, submitted its report in March, 1906. The trades unions
had declined to take part in its investigations, though their
interests were represented on the Commission by one of the
ablest and staunchest champions of the rights of labor, Sidney
Webb. Coal mine owners were represented by one member; the
remaining three members were Lord Dunedin, President of the
Court of Session, Sir Godfrey Lushington, formerly of the Home
Office, and an eminent lawyer of Liberal politics, Arthur
Cohen. The most important recommendation of the Commission was
that "an agreement or combination by two or more persons to do
or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance
of a trade dispute shall not be the ground of a civil action,
unless the agreement or combination is indictable as a
conspiracy, notwithstanding the terms of the ‘Conspiracy and
Protection of Property Act of 1875.’" The Act of 1875 had so
modified the old conspiracy law that no combination to do what
would not be punishable by imprisonment if done by a single
person could be made the subject of a criminal proceeding. The
Commission now advised an extension of the same rule to civil
actions. But, by unanimous agreement the Commission approved
the decision rendered by the House of Lords in the Taff Vale
case (see above), which took away from trades unions in Great
Britain the immunity from being sued which they had formerly
enjoyed. As to the right of "picketing," in the prosecution of
a labor strike, the Commission would have it limited only to
prevent coercion by menace or intimidation in the performance.
It recommended punishment for a workman who "acts in such a
manner as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of
any person that violence will be used to him or to his wife or
family, or damage be done to his property."

In the judgment of the Commission the incorporation of trades
unions is much to be desired. These are the main conclusions
to which it was led by its long study of the subject of
industrial disputes.

LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1907-1909.
Excellent Settlement of a threatened Railway Strike.
Adopted System of Conciliation and Arbitration Boards.

A general railway strike in Great Britain was threatened very
seriously in the autumn of 1907, when the Amalgamated Society
of Railway Servants, ably led by its Secretary, Mr. Richard
Bell, who is a Member of Parliament, presented demands to the
companies which the latter would not yield to. Mr. David
Lloyd-George, the then President of the Board of Trade—which
is a department of the National Government—undertook to
negotiate a peaceable settlement of the dispute, and
accomplished it with remarkable success. The outcome of his
skilful diplomacy was the acceptance, November 6, 1907, by
both companies and men of a comprehensive scheme for
conciliation and arbitration, which provided for the formation
of boards for each railway, consisting of representatives of
the company and of the men, to consider thereafter any
question relating to rates of wages and hours of duty. The
scheme further provided that questions which these boards were
unable to settle were to be referred to a single arbitrator.

The London and North-Western was the first railway company to
complete its arrangements in connection with the scheme, and
demands from most of the grades concerned in the working of
traffic, numbering about 39,000 men, were considered by the
newly-formed conciliation boards. The principal grades
concerned were: Engine drivers, firemen and cleaners;
signalmen; brakesmen and shunters; passenger guards and
platform porters; carriage cleaners, wagon examiners and
greasers; permanent way men; goods staff; cartage staff.

As agreement in the London and North-Western case was found
impossible, reference was made to arbitration, and Sir Edward
Fry was chosen to be arbitrator. He gave hearings on the
questions in controversy in December, 1908, and his award was
announced in the February following. He decided that the
railway company had made good its contention that it could not
pay an "all round advance" in wages of two shillings per week,
which had been the demand for all grades in the service.
{375}
He allowed, in fact, few increases in wages; but awarded, on
the contrary, some reductions in wage which the company
claimed. On other points, concerning the pay for overtime,
etc., his award was to the satisfaction of the railway
employés. On the whole, it seems to have ended the dispute
with considerable satisfaction all round. On this first
decision under the new arrangement for settling disputes, Mr.
Bell expressed himself as "very pleased to find that a great
many of the concessions asked for have been embodied by the
arbitrator in his award. We have got," said he, "rate and a
quarter for overtime for all classes uniformly. We have got
rate and a quarter for Sunday duty for signal men, as well as
other grades who have hitherto not been paid extra rates. We
have got payment for Sunday labour for the passenger staff
—men who were formerly not paid for Sunday duty; we have
established the principle that men doing the work of a higher
grade for more than one day shall be paid at the rate of the
higher grade. That is the principle we have been fighting for
for several years, and it will mean many shillings per week to
thousands of men. A very important item of the award is the
decision that no alteration shall be made in the shape of
increased hours or reduced wages in regard to men whose claims
were submitted to the arbitrator, but whose conditions have
not been altered by the award. We have always, hitherto, had
to complain about companies ‘cutting,’ but the London and
North-Western cannot do it here."

Mr. Bell mentioned that several other similar claims against
other companies were going to arbitration, but while he
thought that Sir Edward Fry’s decisions might have some
influence upon future conferences, he pointed out that other
arbitrators will possibly refuse to accept any lead, but
decide matters entirely upon their own views after dealing
with the particular cases.

A general report to the Board of Trade, on the working of the
Railway Conciliation Boards, under the agreement of November
6, 1907, was published in March, 1909, as a Blue Book, from
which the following is taken:

"The agreement was signed initially on behalf of 11 of the
principal railway companies, but adhesion to its terms was
afterwards signified, subject in the case of the Scottish
companies to modifications of certain clauses upon matters of
detail, by 35 other companies, making a total of 46 railway
companies that have adopted the arrangements proposed by the
Department for avoiding the serious results that would attend
a cessation of labour on railways. The assenting companies
include nearly all those having as many as 200 _employés_
in their service, and in fact the only companies that have not
adopted the scheme are small companies for which the formation
of conciliation boards was not thought to be required, and a
few of the larger companies to whose lines the provisions of
the agreement were for special reasons unsuitable. …

"For the 46 railways dealt with under the scheme, the number
of boards to be formed, apart from the central conciliation
boards, was 169, and the total number of representatives to be
elected on such boards was 877. On 44 of the railways there
was provision for a central board in addition to the sectional
boards, thus making a total of 213 conciliation boards to be
formed altogether under the scheme. … Eight hundred and fifty
representatives of _employés_ were to be elected in these
416 elections, and for these places the total number of
candidates nominated was 1,608.

"The total number of _employés_ eligible to vote upon the
various railways coming within the scheme is estimated at a
little over 270,000. After allowing for cases where the
representatives were returned unopposed, it is found that
where voting papers have actually been issued, over 77 per
cent. of the _employés_ eligible have availed themselves
of the franchise."

LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1908.
"A Notable Labor Treaty."
The Shipbuilding Agreement between Employers and
Trade Unions to avert Strikes and Lockouts.

In the early part of 1908 the woodworkers in the shipbuilding
yards of the north of England went on strike against a
reduction in wages, which was equivalent to one that the
ironworkers in all the British shipyards and the woodworkers
in the Scotch yards had accepted. The Federation of
Shipbuilding Employers then notified a national lockout unless
the strikers resumed work pending the adjustment of the
dispute by conference. For some time past there had been
negotiations on foot between the federated employers and
certain of the other shipbuilding labor unions, aiming at the
conclusion of a permanent working agreement for the prevention
of strikes. The woodworkers were now brought into this
negotiation, and after a long threshing out of disputes, in a
joint committee of representatives from twenty-six trade
unions and from the employers’ federation a "Memorandum of
Agreement" was produced which all signed on the 16th of
December, 1908, and which the London _Times_, making it
public on the 11th of January, characterised rightly as "A
Notable Labor Treaty." The provisions of this industrial
agreement seem to be of so much historical importance that we
give the important sections entire:

"I.—GENERAL FLUCTUATIONS IN WAGES.

"(1) Changes in wages due to the general conditions of the
shipbuilding industry shall be termed general fluctuations.
Such general fluctuations in wages shall apply to all the
trades comprised in this agreement and in every federated firm
at the same time and to the same extent. Differences in rates
of wages in any trade in different districts can be dealt with
as heretofore under clause II., section 3.

"(2) In the case of all such general fluctuations the
following provisions and procedure shall apply, viz.:

(_a_) No step toward an alteration in wages can be
taken until after the lapse of six calendar months from the
date of the previous general fluctuation.

(_b_) Before an application for an alteration can be
made, there shall be a preliminary conference between the
federation and the unions, in order to discuss the position
generally. Such conference shall be held within 14 days of
the request for the same,

(_c_) No application for an alteration shall be
competent until the foregoing preliminary conference has
been held, and no alteration shall take effect within six
weeks of the date of the applications.

(_d_) The application fora proposed alteration shall
be made as follows: The federation to the unions parties to
this agreement; or the said unions to the federations,

(_e_) Within 14 days after the receipt of an
application the parties shall meet in conference.

(_f_) The conference may be adjourned by mutual
agreement, such adjourned conference to be held within 14
days thereafter.

(_g_) Any general fluctuation in trademen’s rates
shall be of the following fixed amount, viz.:—Piecework
rates, 5%; and Time rates 1 /- per week [sic], or ¼d. per
hour where payment is made by the hour.

{376}

"II.
QUESTIONS OTHER THAN GENERAL FLUCTUATIONS IN WAGES.

"(1) When any question is raised by or on behalf of either an
employer or employers, or of a workman or workmen, the
following procedure shall be observed, viz.:—

(_a_) A workman or deputation of workmen shall be
received by their employers in the yard or at the place
where a question has arisen, by appointment, for the mutual
discussion of any question in the settlement of which both
parties are directly concerned; and failing arrangement, a
further endeavour may, if desired, be then made to
negotiate a settlement by a meeting between the employer,
with or without an official of the local association, on
the one hand, and the official delegate, or other official
of the workmen concerned, with or without the workman or
workmen directly concerned, as deemed necessary.

(_ b _) Failing settlement the question shall be
referred to a joint committee consisting of three employers
and three representatives of the union or of each of the
unions directly concerned, none of whom shall be connected
with the yard or dock where the dispute has arisen,

(_c_) Failing settlement under subsection (_b_),
the question shall be brought before the employers’ local
association and the responsible local representatives of
the union or unions directly concerned in local conference.

(_d_) Failing settlement at local conference, it shall
be competent for either party to refer the question to a
central conference to be held between the executive board
of the federation and representatives of the union or
unions directly concerned, such representatives to have
executive power.

"(2) If the question is in its nature a general one affecting
more than yard or dock, it shall be competent to raise it
direct in local conference, or if it is general and affecting
the federated firms or workmen in more than one district, it
shall be competent to raise it direct in central conference
without in either case going through the prior procedure above
provided for.

"(3) The questions hereby covered shall extend to all
questions relating to wages, including district alterations in
wages and other matters in the shipbuilding and ship repairing
trade, which may give rise to disputes.

"III.—GRAND CONFERENCE.

"In the event of failure to settle any question in central
conference under clause II., section 1, subsection (_d_),
either party desirous to have such question further considered
shall prior to any stoppage of work refer same for final
settlement to a grand conference to be held between the
federation and all the unions parties to this agreement. A
conference may by mutual agreement be adjourned. On any
occasion when a settlement has not been reached, the
conference must be adjourned to a date not earlier than 14
days nor later than one month from the date of such
conference. …

"VI.—GENERAL PROVISIONS.

"At all meetings and conferences the representatives of both
sides shall have full powers to settle, but it shall be in
their discretion whether or not they conclude a settlement.

"In the event of any stoppage of work occurring in any
federated yard or federated district either in contravention
of the foregoing or after the procedure laid down has been
exhausted, entire freedom of action is hereby reserved to the
federation, and any federated association, and to the unions
concerned, notwithstanding the provisions of this agreement.
The suspension of the agreement shall be limited to such
particular stoppage, and the agreement in all other respects
shall continue in force.

"Pending settlement of any question other than questions of
wages, hours, and piece prices (the last-named of which is
provided for above), two or three employers not connected with
the yard where the question has arisen shall give a temporary
decision, but such decision shall be without prejudice to
either party, and shall not be adduced in evidence in the
ultimate settlement of the question.

"The expression ‘employer’ throughout this agreement shall
include an employer’s accredited representative.

"Until the whole procedure of this agreement applying to the
question at issue has been carried through there shall be no
stoppage or interruption of work either of a partial or of a
general character.

"VII.—DURATION OF AGREEMENT.

"This agreement shall continue in force for three years, and
shall thereafter be subject to six months’ notice in writing
on either side, said notice not to be competent until the
three years have elapsed."

Signed by the President of the Shipbuilding Employers
Federation and by seven representatives of the Trades Unions.

LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1909.
Educational Demands of the Trade Unions.

See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND.

LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1909.
Trade Unions forbidden to pay Members of Parliament.

See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (JULY-DECEMBER).

LABOR ORGANIZATION: France: A. D. 1884-1909.
Organized Labor in the French Republic.
The Syndicats and Syndicalism.
A Trade Union version of Socialism.
The Confédération Générale du Travail,
and the idea of a general strike.
Its revolutionary implication.

The strike of government employés in the French telegraph and
postal service, begun in March, 1909, and which was recognized
instantly as a most alarmingly revolutionary movement, roused
inquiry everywhere concerning the form and character that
labor organization in France has taken on. The London
_Times_ gave elaborate satisfaction to this inquiry by a
series of five articles, published in April, by a writer whose
evident knowledge of the subject was complete. The statements
here following are condensed from that source:

{377}

The organization of labor in France differs in important
respects from that in Great Britain and the United States.
"The French term for trade unions is syndicats, or, more
correctly, _syndicats professionnels_; but the two terms
are not equivalent or synonymous. For, whereas the word 'trade
union’ is applied only to combinations of persons employed,
the syndicats include also combinations of employers and of
both together." The employers’ associations are called
_syndicats patronaux_. "A trade union is a combination of
persons engaged in the same trade without any reference to
locality; they may be and generally are widely distributed in
many places; the bond is the trade, not the locality; hence
the use of the singular number. There is another kind of
combination formed by several trades in the same locality and
called a trades council; the bond is the locality, not the
trade. Both forms of organization exist in France; the trade
union is called _syndicat ouvrier_, and the trades
council _bourse du travail_. … Both play a part in the
movement, and, though in the aggregate they are composed of
the same individuals, their policy and interests are not
always or necessarily identical. Both are further combined
into federations.

"The effective development of trade unionism in France only
dates from 1884, when the law authorizing the formation of
_syndicats professionels_ was passed." Unions had existed
before, but under difficulties, without sanction of law. "The
peculiarity of the struggle for the right of combination in
France was that the necessity remained under numerous changes
and diverse forms of government … and that the democratic
State was not less but rather more oppressive than the others.
… It was the National Assembly, travailing with the
Revolution, which, in the sacred name of liberty and the
rights of man, forbade the citizens to form trade
organizations by the law of 1791; and for nearly 100 years
this ban remained through all the subsequent changes,
sometimes fortified, sometimes relaxed, but never removed."
The law of 1791 was relaxed under Napoleon III., but the
severity of it was renewed by the Government of the Third
Republic, down to 1884. In that year, according to official
returns, there existed but 68 regularly constituted unions in
France. By 1890 the number had increased to 1006, with a
membership of 139,692. In 1908 the reported number of unions
was 5524, and their membership 957,102. "The aggregate is as
yet comparatively small, and, numerically, trade unionism is
still relatively weak in France; but the example of Germany
shows how rapidly this movement may increase in strength.
According to the occupational census of 1901 the number of
persons in France who might be enrolled in trade unions was
approximately 9,000,000; and the numbers would not be
substantially higher now, so that the official returns show
roughly about 10 per cent. organized. … With regard to
organization by industries the largest number of trade
unionists belonged in 1907 to the following groups:

Transport, 260,869;
metal industries, 103,835;
textiles, 78,854;
building trades, 66,678;
miners, 64,194;
agriculture and forestry, 51,407;
food and drink, 48,353.

But trade union strength depends, for economic purposes, more
upon the proportion of workers organized in a given trade than
upon the actual number. From this point of view the strongest
groups are, with the percentage of workers organized, as
follows:

Miners, 35 per cent;
chemical industries, 31.2;
transport, 23.4;
paper and printing, 20.9;
leather, 20.0;
metal workers, 18.7.

These figures have an important bearing on the situation,
because of the division, which will be discussed in a
subsequent article, of the unions into revolutionary and
moderate groups. As for geographical distribution, Paris is
the great centre, and the north of France is much stronger
than the south."

"The term _bourse du travail_ means literally 'labour
exchange,' and that was the original function of these
organizations; it still is one of them, but is overshadowed by
the all-devouring political aims which in France seem to seize
hold of all things, one after another, and swallow them up.
The _bourses_ were started in 1886, two years after trade
unionism received its charter. … But instead of being used for
their original purpose, strictly as labour exchanges, they
soon became a form of labour organization corresponding as
nearly as possible to our trade councils, though supported by
municipal or departmental subventions. … According to M.
Mermeix, to whose brilliant work on ‘Le Syndicalisme contre le
Socialisme’ I am indebted for much information, the syndicats
were promptly seized upon by the Guesdist or Social Democratic
party as soon as they began to develop freely after 1884, and
the other Socialist bodies, who were then in violent
antagonism, responded by cultivating the _bourses du
travail_. The inevitable result was a strong political turn
given to both sets of organizations; but it was not the turn
intended by the Socialists. For presently the _syndicats_
and the _bourses_, which really represent ‘Labour’ turned
against the politicians called Socialists, who do not
represent ‘Labour,’ and made common cause against them."

"The most obvious feature of the movement in recent years has
been a great increase of industrial restlessness. We need not
put it all down to the trade unions, but they have had a good
deal to do with it, and have undoubtedly been devoting their
energies in an increasing measure to strikes." This "began in
1899 and has continued, with fluctuations, ever since. It
reached its high-water mark in 1906, and then somewhat
subsided, but recent events show that the same spirit is still
active. And besides increasing in number, extent, and
duration, the strikes have frequently been marked by acts of
violence and attended in several cases by loss of life. All
this, in spite of a system of conciliation and arbitration and
strong organization on the part of employers. What is the
cause? There has been nothing in the economic situation to
account for industrial disorder continued over a series of
years. …

"_Syndicalisme_ is the distinctive mark of the present
labour movement in France. … Perhaps the essential character
of _Syndicalisme_ is best expressed by saying that it is
a purely trade union version of Socialism, definitely and even
violently opposed to Collectivism and more nearly allied to
anarchism, yet distinct from it. … The object of Syndicalisme
is revolution, sudden and complete, in which the State, with
all the apparatus of government, is to disappear, and the
possession and control of material means—which alone count—is
to pass from the hands of its present owners, whether private
or public, into those of organized labour. This original idea
is Socialistic or Collectivist in so far as it is directed
against capitalism; it is anarchistic in so far as it
contemplates the disappearance of the State; but, above all,
it is trade unionist, for the _syndicat_ is posited as
the unit or cell of the future social organism. …
{378}
To complete this brief outline of the idea of
_Syndicalisme_ it is only necessary to add that the means
whereby the revolution is to be accomplished is the general
strike, and that, pending that consummation, ordinary strikes
are systematically encouraged as good practice, in which, as
by skirmishes or manoeuvres, the labour forces are trained and
prepared for the great encounter."

The idea of a general strike was put forward in 1888 by an
anarchist Parisian carpenter named Tortelier, and the militant
forces of organized labor rallied to it. It brought together
the two sets into which labor organization had split—the
Guesdist party, controlling the _Syndicats_, and their
opponents in possession of the _bourses du travail_. It
"caused the rout and withdrawal of the Social Democrats, and
so led to the birth of _Syndicalisme_. The turning point
was reached in 1894 at a joint congress held at Nantes, when
after a set debate the general strike was adopted by 65 votes
against 37, with nine abstinents. In the following year the
Confédération Genérale du Travail was formed as a new and
united federation of trade unions, purged of politics, or, at
least, of Parliamentary politics; and thenceforward the two
sets of organizations—trade unions and trades councils—drew
the labour car together; but at first and for some years they
by no means pulled together." In 1902 they were harmonized,
"mainly by the efforts of M. Niel," who has been called the
real creator of the _Confédération Générale_, to the head
of which, as general secretary, "which means president," he
was elected in February, 1909. "The word ‘president’ is
eschewed, as savoring of the _bourgeois_ state." M. Niel
is a compositor. "He is of the best type of trade unionist; a
calm, capable, level-headed man, devoted to trade unionism,
but no crazy theorist or violent fanatic."

"The numerical strength of the Confederation or its want of
strength is a point on which its enemies are never tired of
insisting. In October last the official figures presented to
the congress at Marseilles were: First section, 2,586
_syndicats_, with an aggregate membership of 294,398;
second section, 154 _bourses du travail_, representing
2,014 _syndicats_. The figures must not be added
together, because the two sections represent the same or
almost the same forces, differently organized. The returns of
the first section show the effective membership, and we may
call it 300,000. Now the official statistics of the
_Ministère du Travail_ give the total membership of
_syndicate ouvriers_ at the beginning of 1908 as 957,102.
The Confederation, therefore, embraces less than one-third of
the organized labour in France. But that calculation is open
to some criticisms; the Government returns are said to be too
high, those of the Confederation too low. There is probably
some truth in both statements."

LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1902.
Extensive Strike of Coal Miners.
Strikes at Marseilles.

On the 8th of October, 1902, the National Committee of French
Miners, meeting at Paris, voted to declare a general strike,
and issued a manifesto to their comrades in Europe, America,
and Australia, appealing for aid and stating their cause, in
these words; "We are pushed to the last extremity in fighting
to obtain a slight improvement in our miserable condition—more
equitable remuneration, with the regulation of our work for
the present, and legislation sheltering us against the strict
needs of old age. We are sure you understand your duty. We
leave to you the initiative in such measures as are most
convenient to you in aiding us in this struggle." The strike
had actually begun in part before this order was given and it
was estimated that some 42,000 men had left work in the
northern coal fields. The whole number of French miners was
calculated by the _Temps_ to be 162,000 men, of whom,
however, only 60,000 belonged to the federation. The mine
owners refused to discuss the matter, declaring that the
strike began before any warning had been given them and
without any sufficient motives, and also that the chief points
in dispute were already before parliamentary committees.
Troops were sent to the mining districts, and some conflicts
occurred. The Government attempted arbitration, and late in
October an agreement was reached which brought the strike to
an end.

At the same time troublesome strikes of dock-laborers,
stokers, and sailors were going on at Marseilles, for some
weeks.

LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1906.
Serious Strikes and Labor Disturbances.

See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.

LABOR ORGANIZATION: A. D. 1909 (March-May).
Serious Strike of Government Employés in the Telegraph
and Postal Service.
Overcome by the firmness of the Government.
Disciplinary proceedings.
Court decision against Trade Unions among
Employés of the State.

The organizations involved in the strike of government
employés in the telegraph and postal service of France, which
began on the 13th of March, 1909, are outside of the Labor
_Syndicats_ embraced in the _Confédération Genérale du
Travail_ described above; but in part they have been
brought into close connection with that combination and have
striven for identification with it. As explained by the Paris
correspondent of the London _Times_, "the associations of
French Civil servants include two quite separate groups—one
in favour of Parliamentary action, the other sympathizing with
the General Confederation of Labour and desiring to be allowed
to combine freely and, when it suits them, to strike. The
former group is represented by a Comité d’Études so-called,
and includes a large number of primary school teachers and
_Lycée_ professors, the association of the Law Courts
clerks, sub-_employés_ at the Post Office,
_employés_ of the Roads and Inland Communications
Department of the Ministry of Public Works, and so forth.
These various associations, forming the first group, are
convinced that their lot can be quite adequately improved if
Parliament will only vote a satisfactory Bill on the
_status_ of functionaries. The second group has no
confidence whatever in such a measure. It does not count on
Parliament for a panacea. Under the title of ‘Central
Committee for the defence of the syndical rights of
wage-earners of the State, the departments, and the communes,’
it has always worked in unison with the revolutionary unions
of the General Confederation of Labour, and it was this group
which wrote two years ago to M. Clemenceau an open letter
stating their demands, among which the most important of all
was the right to strike.
{379}
In consequence of that manifestation, which was regarded as
illegal, a certain number of functionaries were dismissed,
notably, as readers of _The Times_ will recall, a school
teacher by the name of Nègre, an official of the Ministry of
the Interior, M. Janvion, a postman named Simonnet, and an
electrician, M. Pataud."

These dismissed officials, M. Pataud especially, were the
leaders of the strike that was undertaken on the 13th of
March, when twelve hundred men employed in the central offices
of the Paris Telegraph Department stopped work at about 2
o’clock in the afternoon, "in order to express ‘sympathy’ with
three hundred men of the postal service who had invaded the
offices on the 12th, and had made a demonstration against M.
Simyan, the Under-Secretary of State for Posts and
Telegraphs." "The precise grievances of the strikers," said
_The Times_, "are probably known to their superiors; but,
so far as we have seen, they have not been placed before the
outside world in any form which renders it possible even
clearly to understand them."

On the other hand, a special correspondent of the New York
_Evening Post_ wrote from Paris on the 25th of March:
"The strike of these government employees may have been a side
development of the general movement which threatens to
transform the Parliamentary French republic into a
_république syndicale_; but, in itself, it was something
far different. And, for another reason, it is a direct
object-lesson for the United States, where the trade unions
are not yet revolutionary. The entire strike has been a
spontaneous uprising of civil service in possession against
the invasion of a spoils system. The strike would not have
been possible if these civil service appointees—‘government
functionaries’—had not formed themselves into strongly
organized unions, just as private service employees have long
been doing; and in this they have been encouraged by
successive republican governments, unforeseeing perhaps such
strikes as the inevitable consequence. The spoils system in
the present case means the intervention of political influence
in civil service appointments and promotions." The strikers,
said this writer, want essentially two things, "First, that
politicians—and particularly Postmaster-General Simyan, who
was taken over from M. Combes into the present
government—should cease interfering with civil service
appointments and promotions and no longer use their power in
behalf of the favorite of some deputy with ‘influence.’"

The situation produced in Paris by the strike was thus
described by this correspondent of _The Post_: "We of
Paris were for eight days in the same condition as Frenchmen
were before Richelieu invented a State postal service for the
use of private persons. For example, my last letters were
sent—one to Havre by a special messenger who was carrying by
hand cable messages for several correspondents to be forwarded
from that port; one to London by another special messenger,
who posted it with many others in a channel boat; and a third
to Cherbourg by the kindness of the American Chamber of
Commerce of Paris, which organized a service of its own for
its members. … If there had been a sudden outbreak between
Servia and Austria last week, the French government would have
known little about it, and, in case of need, army mobilization
would have been impossible."

A system of public service in which such situations as this
are made possible could not exist long without destruction of
government and of all social order. No argument was needed to
demonstrate that it must not be paltered with; but the
Government of France was forced momentarily to yield so much
show of deference or respect to its rebellious servants, whose
demands were made with arrogance of spirit and insolence of
tone, that the arrogance and insolence appeared to have
triumphed in the encounter with national sovereignty and law.
The tenor of an interview given on the 22d by the Premier, M.
Clemenceau, and the Minister of Public Works, Posts, and
Telegraphs, M. Barthou, to a committee from the striking
employés of the State, was thus stated in a Press despatch at
the time:

"The two conditions which had been submitted to the Ministers
were, first, immunity from disciplinary penalties for all the
strikers; secondly, the resignation of M. Simyan, the
obnoxious Under-Secretary of State. The Ministers had agreed
to the first of these conditions for all strikers who should
have returned to work by Tuesday morning. The second condition
was refused by the Ministers on the ground that M. Simyan is
responsible to the Chamber of Deputies, but not to the postal
employés. M. Barthou had, however, made it plain that, in
accordance with the terms of his speech in the Chamber last
Friday, the Government contemplated appointing in place of M.
Simyan an official with the qualification of technical
knowledge. ‘When, on Friday,’ he said, ‘I discussed before the
Chamber the transformation of the Under-Secretaryship of Posts
and Telegraphs into a technical directorship, I was not
employing an empty phrase. I consider that the reform is of
practical interest and that it ought to be effected at an
early date.’ This was as near a promise to fulfil the
strikers’ demands as constitutional considerations would
permit." This brought about a return to duty of postal clerks
and operators of the telegraph and the telephone; but they
returned as victorious revolutionists, and the news from Paris
in the following weeks was filled with accounts of their
manifestations of contempt and defiance for the Government,
and the extensive insubordination among them that prevailed.
But the Government, on its side, supported strongly by a great
majority of votes in the Chamber of Deputies, and by resolute
expressions of public opinion from every part of France, was
now taking measures to prepare itself for defeating any future
attempt to paralyze the service of the posts and wires. The
engineer troops and other technical branches of the service
were warned to be ready for emergencies, carrier pigeons were
collected, and preliminary arrangements made for an elaborate
service of motor-cars. Chambers of commerce throughout the
country were called on to be prepared to coöperate with the
Government in organizing an auxiliary mail service. By such
measures it was soon rendered safe to begin applying
discipline to the insubordination that had become rife. Seven
flagrant offenders were tried by a Council of Discipline and
dismissed, on the 8th of May, and this precipitated an attempt
to renew the strike, and to make it introductory to the
long-threatened revolutionary strike of all labor in France.
{380}
A few anxious days followed, while the menace kept a serious
show, and then it vanished, like an emptied cloud. The firm
attitude of the Government and the hostility of national
opinion had daunted the revolutionary _syndicats_ which
inclined to join fortunes with the revolutionists of the
public service, and the latter were left to confront official
authority alone. Their second strike came to nothing. A
despatch from Paris on the 16th of May stated that 548 postmen
who were prominent in the rebellion of the strike had been
expelled from the service, and that others were receiving less
severe punishments from the Disciplinary Court.

Ultimately, sixteen officials of the Post Office were
prosecuted by the Government for illegally forming a trade
union. They were brought to trial in July, with the result
announced on the 29th as follows: "The 16 officials who were
prosecuted by the Government have been condemned to a purely
nominal fine of 12s. 6d., and their union has been declared to
be contrary to the law. The Court argued that in the present
state of the law there was no doubt whatever that the
Waldeck-Rousseau Bill of 1884, permitting the organization of
trade unions, solely had application to the interests of
private individuals, and that the Chamber of Deputies had not
meant to extend the provisions of that law to Civil servants.
The considerations of this important legal judgment
furthermore declare it to be utterly preposterous that State
_employés_ should arrogate to themselves the right to
strike, since they are the _employés_ of the nation, and
enjoy moreover such special privileges as servants of the
State that no comparison can be drawn between them and the
working classes, whose right to strike is not contested."

The judgment of the Paris Correctional Court, in the case of
the sixteen officials who were prosecuted for illegally
forming a trade union was followed, on the 7th of August, by a
kindred decision from the Conseil d'État, to which two
dismissed postmen had appealed. Their application to be
restored to the service was denied. The decree of the Conseil
expressly declared that a strike of civil servants is an
"illegal act," and added that a State official "has accepted
all the obligations arising from the necessities of the public
service and has renounced all privileges incompatible with the
essential continuity of the national life," that civil
servants who declare a strike place themselves collectively
outside the pale of the laws and regulations which guarantee
the exercise for them of the rights which they normally
possess as servants of the State.

Having thus vindicated its authority over the servants of the
State, the Government exercised a wise clemency at once. Two
days after the decision of the Conseil d’État, the new
Minister of Public Works authorized the publication of the
following note: "In consequence of the decision of the Conseil
d’État, M. Millerand has decided, while approving the
suspensions pronounced by their respective chiefs, that 30
officials of both sexes, five subaltern officials, and ten
Post Office workmen who have been dismissed should resume work
the day after tomorrow." Further reinstatements were announced
in the course of the following month.

LABOR ORGANIZATION: Germany: A. D. 1905.
Strikes.

Upwards of 100,000 miners in the coal fields of the Ruhr
district began a strike in January which did not end until the
middle of February, and which caused most of the iron works
and machine shops of Rhenish Prussia and Westphalia to be
closed. Low wages (of 4 marks or a little less than a dollar
per day) and inhuman and dishonest treatment were the chief
complaints in the miners. A bill to reform conditions in the
mines was passed soon afterwards. The cost of the strike to
all concerned was estimated to have been more than
$30,000,000. A very serious strike of about 40,000 men in
electrical industries occurred at Berlin in September and
October, resulting in a concession of six per cent. increase
of wages to the men. Statistics published in the next year
showed a startling increase of labor conflicts in 1904 and
1905. From 1899 to 1903 the yearly average of strikes had been
1242. In 1904 the number rose to 1870, and in 1905 to 2057.
Lockouts had averaged 42 in each of the previous five years,
but increased to 120 in 1904. Apparently the labor conditions
were no more peaceable in 1906.

LABOR ORGANIZATION: Germany: A. D. 1905-1906.
The Operation of Industrial Courts.
Desire for Voluntary Boards of Conciliation.

"In the event of actual dispute the official machinery of the
Industrial Courts is always at call, should the disputants be
willing to use it. The law requires the formation of these
Courts in all towns with over 20,000 inhabitants, but they may
be formed elsewhere at the option of the Government of the
State or on the joint requisition of a given number of
employers and workpeople, and they consist of equal numbers of
both. That the 406 Courts now in existence do not mediate
oftener would appear to be less the fault of the workpeople
than of the employers. During 1905 they acted as boards of
conciliation on 350 occasions: on 165 in response to
invitations from both sides, on 175 on the invitation of the
workpeople alone, and on ten only on the sole invitation of
the employers. Only in 128 cases was it possible to bring the
disputing parties together. …

"At the annual meeting of the German Society for Social
Reform, held in Berlin in December, 1906, resolutions were
adopted ‘affirming the meeting’s conviction that industrial
peace would best be promoted by the development of collective
arrangements between employers and work-people in the form of
(1) wages agreements,
(2) voluntary boards of conciliation and arbitration, and
(3) workmen’s committees for individual works’;
and it was urged that, ‘after the example of Great Britain,
conciliation boards suited to the various industries should be
generally formed, these to cooperate with higher tribunals and
to call in on occasion the help of prominent public men as
advisers and arbitrators.’"

_William H. Dawson,
The Evolution of Modern Germany,
page 136
(Unwin, London; Scribners, New York., 1909)._

LABOR ORGANIZATION: Germany: A. D. 1905-1909.
The Spirit of the Struggle between Capitalists and Workmen.
Attitude of the Latter.

"The struggle between labour and capital in Germany is a
little less refined than in some other countries. …
Rhineland—Westphalia is its chosen battle ground. Here all the
conditions of economic warfare exist in a rare degree. It is a
striking fact that a large part of the natural resources,
industry, and wealth-production of that unresting workshop of
Germany is under the control of a dozen men of commanding
business genius—men of strong and masterful character, born
rulers of the sternest mould, without sentiment, not
insusceptible to justice, yet never going beyond it,
inflexible in decision, of inexhaustible will-power, and
impervious to all modern notions of political liberalism.
{381}
These men, who have so conspicuously helped to create modern
industrial Prussia, and who are a greater real power in the
land than Ministers and legislators put together, typify in
modern industry the feudalism which is slowly dying upon the
great estates of the East. Their attitude towards the unions
in which their workmen are organised to the number of hundreds
of thousands is frequently expressed in the maxim, ‘We intend
to be masters in our own house,’ and nothing is wanting in the
vigour with which this maxim is applied. On the occasion of
the Mannheim conference of the Association for Social Policy
in September, 1905, Herr Kirdorf, probably the best known
industrialist of Westphalia, and the head of the Coal and
Steel Syndicates, was invited to give an employer’s reply to
an indictment of the syndicates made by Professor Gustav
Schmoller. In the course of his statement occurred the
following observations on the question of labour
organisation:—

"‘It is regrettable that our workpeople are able to change
their positions at any time. An undertaking can only prosper
if it has a stationary band of workers. I do not ask that
legislation should come to our help, but we must reserve to
ourselves the right to take measures to check this frequent
change of employment. The proposal has been made that all
workpeople should be compelled to join organisations and that
employers should be required to negotiate with these
organisations. For myself I would remark that I refuse to
negotiate with any organisation whatever.’ …

"Public opinion naturally finds itself often in conflict with
the Westphalian industrialists’ attitude, which more than
anything else was responsible for the solid gain won by the
men in the great colliery strike of 1905. It was the same Herr
Kirdorf who declared during that strike, 'The movement can
only end by the men recognising that they can get nothing by a
strike and returning to the mines. We will negotiate with
every man singly, but we will not concede workmen’s
committees.’ It was this inflexible attitude, persisted in too
long, which turned first the public and then the Government
against the colliery owners. By refusing to meet the colliers’
‘Committee of Seven’ they created the impression that the men
were wishful for peace but were unable to gain an ear for
their overtures. In the end not only were workmen’s committees
granted by force of law, but the hours of labour were
curtailed, fines were abolished, and other concessions were
made which cost the colliery owners dearly, until the extra
burden could be transferred to the public."

_William H. Dawson,
Evolution of Modern Germany,
pages 122-125
(Unwin, London; Scribners, New York, 1909)._

LABOR ORGANIZATION: Germany: A. D. 1909.
Extent of Trade Unionism.

The twentieth International Congress of Miners was held in
Berlin, and at its opening, on the 31st of May, 1909, Herr
Ritter, president of the Federation of Berlin Trade Unions, in
welcoming the Congress, said that there were now 223,000 trade
unionists in Berlin, as compared with 40,000 when the congress
held its last meeting there 15 years ago. Another German
speaker said that during the last 15 years the number of trade
unionists in the whole Empire had increased from 300,000 to
1,800,000.

LABOR ORGANIZATION: Italy: A. D. 1901.
Changed Attitude of the Government toward Labor Unions.

See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1901.

LABOR ORGANIZATION: Italy: A. D. 1909.
A Church Movement of Agricultural Labor Organization.

"An agitation among agricultural labourers in North Umbria
seems to have taken a new and very unusual form, since, from
all accounts, it is directly promoted and supported by the
clergy. The parish priests in the neighbourhood of Perugia are
said not only to have put themselves at the head of the
movement, but to have actually initiated it with a manifesto
denouncing the grievances of the labourers, and calling upon
them to organize themselves in order to extort more favourable
conditions from the landowners who employ them. The Church
seems to have satisfied itself that the mutual relations of
capital and labour were unfair to the labourer, and to have
determined to be beforehand with the Socialist agitator,
creating an organization which will call itself
_democristiana_, or Christian democrat, in anticipation
of what might have been a more revolutionary Socialist league.
The manifesto was issued last May, and contained much the same
demands as have been successfully made by labour in other
parts of Italy. … So far the landowners have proved absolutely
recalcitrant. A league of resistance has been formed on their
side, and an attempt was made at reprisals by boycotting
parish priests, stopping any payment of tithes to the Church,
dismissing any private chaplains who belonged to the secular
clergy, and employing the regular clergy instead of the
parochial in any cases where their services were required.

"The parish clergy were not to be intimidated by financial
loss, and the proprietors then appealed to the Archbishop of
Perugia to put his veto on their agitation. The Archbishop,
Monsignor Mattei-Gentile, could only inform them that he had
already given his sanction to the movement. The proprietors,
by the friendly mediation of a Cardinal, then appealed to the
Pope. After some consideration, Pius X. sent a certain Signor
Giovanni Passamonti, a lawyer who has had a good deal of
experience in Umbrian affairs, to make an inquiry, and attempt
some kind of compromise. Neither side, however, would listen
to suggestions of conciliation. … So the matter now stands.
The position is certainly an interesting one, as it is the
first time that the Church has actually taken the lead in a
labour movement."

_Rome Correspondent, London Times,
July 21, 1909._

{382}