Industrial Democracy. Sidney Webb
to ignore the trade regulations maintained by the monopolists. To remedy this disastrous state of things a loose federation was between 1850 and i860 gradually formed among the local societies for the express purpose of discussing, at annual congresses, how to establish more satisfactory relations between the ports. In the records of these congresses we watch, for nearly thirty years, the struf yprle of the monopolist SQekties_against the efforts ot those, SUCli da Glasgew—a«d—Neatsastle^^^ose drcumstanres had rnnvpri-p d them to a belief in compl ete mobility of labor with in a trad e. The open societies at last lost patience with tne conservative spirit of the others, and in 1882 united to form a national amalgamated union, based on the principle of a common purse and complete mobility between port and port. This organisa- tion, the Associated Shipwrights' Society, has, in fifteen years, succeeded in absorbing all but three of the local societies, and now extends to every port in the kingdom. "In thesd times of mammoth firms, with large capital," writes the general secretary, " the days of local societies' utility have gone by, and it is to be hoped the few still remaining outside the consolidated association of their trade will ere long lay aside all local animus and trivial objections, or personal feeling … for the paramount interest of their trade." ^
The history of the Shipwrights' organisation is typical of^-tbat_Q£_other port unions. The <mmerous societies of Sail makers, once ngJUty -mewftpnljat., are now ^. united in a fe deration, within whrV.h complete mobility p revails. The Coopers' societies, which in the port town."? "^ had formerly much in common with the Shipwrights, now, with one excep- tion, admit to membership any duly apprenticed cooper from
1 Twelfth Annual Report of Associated Shipwrights' Society (Newcastle, 1894), p. xi.
Rules for the Guidance of the Federation of the Sailmakers of Great Britain
and Ireland (Hull, 1890).
The Unit of Government 75
another town. But the main citadels of local monopoly in the Trade Union world have always been the trade clubs of Dublin, Cork, and Limerick. The Dublin Coopers have, even at the present time, a rigidly closed society, which refuses all intercourse with other unions, and maintains, through an ingenious arrangement, a strict monopoly of this important coopering centre;^ and the Cork Stonemasons, who are combjped in an old local club, whilst insisting on working at Fermoy whenever they please, will not, as we learn, suffer any mason, from Fermoy or elsewhere, to obtain employment at Cork.
Even in Ireland, however, the development of Tra de> Unionism is hostile to local monopoly. Any growing in-i dustry is quickly invaded by members "of the great English I societies, who establish their own branches and force thef local clubs to come to terms. One by one old Irish unions] apply to be admitted as branches into the richer and more powerful English societies, and have in consequence to accept the principle of com plete mobility of labor. ^ The famous^
1 The arrangement is as follows : The Dublin Coopers do not prohibit strainers from working in Dublin when more coopers are wanted. On such occasions the secretary writes to coopers' societies in other towns, notably Burton, stating the number of men required. Upon all such outsiders a tax of a shilling a week is levied as " working fee," half of which benefits the DuTlftl society, the other half being accumulated to pay the immigrant's return fare. As soon as work shows signs of approaching slackness, the "foreigner" receives warning that he must instantly depart : it is said that his return ticket is presented to him, with any balance remaining out of his weekly sixpence. As many as 200 " strangers " will in this way sometimes be paid off, and sent away in a single week. By this means the Dublin Coopers (3) secure absolute regularity of employment for their own members, (i) provide the extra labor required in busy times, and (?) maintain their own control over the conditions under which the work is done. The employers appear to be satisfied with the arrangement, which, so far as we have •;en able to ascertain, is the only surviving instance of what was once a common rule of port unions. Thus, the rules of Queenstown Ship- wrights' Society, right down to its absorption in the Associated Shipwrights' Society (in 1894), included a provision that "no strange shipwright" should be allowed to work in the town while a member was idle. And the Liverpool Sailmakers' Society (established 1817) has, among the MS. rules preserved in the old minute-book, one providing that "strangers" with indentures should be allowed to work at " legal sail-rooms," but should members be unable to obtain employment elsewhere, then " the stranger shall be discharged and the member be engaged."
76 Trade Union Structure
"Dublin Regulars," a rigidly monopolist local carpenters' union, claiming descent from the gilds, and always striving to exclude from admission any but the sons of the members,' became, in 1890, at the instance of its younger members, one of the 629 branches of the Amalgamated Society of Car- penters and Joiners, bound to admit to work fellow-members from all parts of the world. A^mong the Irish Shipwrights, too, once the most rigidly monopolist of all, this tendency has progressed with exceptional rapidity. The annual report of the Associated Shipwrights' Society for 1893 records' the absorption irl that year alone of no fewer than six old Irish port unions, each of which had hitherto striven to maintain for its members all the work of its own port. > But although the growth of national organisation has (done much to break down this spirit of local monopoly, we do not wish to imply that it has been completely eradicated. The workman, whether a Trade Unionist or not, still shares with the shopkeeper and the small manu- facturer, the old instinctive objection to work " going out of the town." The proceedings of local authorities often reveal to us the " small master," the retail tradesman, and the local artisan kll insisting that "the ratepayers' money " should be spent so as directly to benefit the local trade. Trade Unionists are not backward in making use of this vulgar error when it suits their purpose, and the " labor members " of town or county councils can seldom refrain, whenever it is proposed "t6 send work into the country," from adopting an argument which they find so convincing to many of their middle-class colleagues.*
' See, for instance, the detailed account of It given in the Report on Tradt Societies and Strikes of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science (i860), pp. 418–423. -
2 Twelfth Annual Report of the Associated Shipwright^ Society, p. xi. (New- castle, 1894).
' During the first eight years of the London County Council (1889–97) several attempts were made to confine contracts to London firms. It is interesting to note that these all emanated from middle-class members of the Moderate Party, and that they were opposed by John Burns and a large majority of the " Laboi Members " and Progressives, as well as by the more responsible of the " Moderates."
The Unit of Government 'j'j
But if we follow the Labor Member from the council chamber to his Trade Union branch meeting, we shall I'recognise that the grievance felt by his Trade Unionist GQjistituents is not exclusively, or even mainly, based on the " local protectionism " of the shopkeeper and the small manufacturer. What the urban Trade Unionist actually ^ resists is not any loss of work to a particular locality, but the incessant- attempt of contractors to evade the Trade Union regulations, by getting the work done in districts in which the workmen are either not organised at all, or in which they are working at a low Standard Rate. Thus the Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons incurs consider- able odium because the branches in many large towns insert in their local rules a prohibition of the use of stone imported in a worked state from any outside district. But this general prohibition arises from the fact that the practical alternative to working the stone on the spot is getting it worked in the district in which it is quarried. Now, whatever mechanical or economic advantage may be claimed for the latter practice, it so happens that the quarry districts are those in which the Stonemasons are worst organised. In these districts for the most part, no Standard Rate exists, the hours of labor are long and variable, and competitive piece- work, unregulated by any common agreement, usually prevails. Moreover, any transference of work from the Stonemasons of large cities where jobs dovetail with each other, to the Stonemasons of quarry villages, entirely dependent on the spasmodic orders for worked stone received by the quarry owner, necessarily involves an increase in the number of Stonemasons exposed to irregularity of work, and habitually " on tramp " from county to county.^
For instance the " Working Rules to be observed by the Master