EDITORIAL REPORTS
THAT WERE PUBLISHED IN THE RAILWAY REVIEW
12TH MAY 1905
PART I
It is the business of a Trade Union to protect the interests of its members, and every union must be judged by it success in meeting this simple demand. The duties cast upon a Trade Union in these days cannot and ought not be restricted to mere questions of wages and hours. It is its business to provided for and to meet all the emergencies which arise out of and are consequent upon the employment in which its members are engaged. These are now of a multifarious nature, consequent upon the enlarge scope of legislation, which has thrust new duties upon them, as they have upon other bodies of a public or semi public nature. There is no disguising the fact that, just as the duties of local bodies have been enlarged by the passing of Public Health Acts, Libraries Act, Education Acts, Shop Hours Act, and many others, so have the duties of a Trade Union been also enlarged by Truck Acts, Factory and Workshops Acts, Workmen's Compensation Acts, Hours Acts, and Accident Acts. nor is it likely that the process will stopper. All these developments are only part of a policy which is bound to grow from more to more; a development which is natural and, indeed, inevitable. This development increases and intensifies the necessity for every workman belonging to his Trade Union, in order that he may not only insure himself from the risks incidental to his employment, but also in order that he may derive the full benefit of the legislation which has been passed for his protection. It must be remembered that, however good a law may be, it is not automatic in its working. Too many of these laws are permissive, and where this is not o they require the presence and persistent efforts of a powerful organisation in order that the full benefits may be obtained, and more powerful the organisation the more far reaching its influences, the greater prospects of success. Especially is this the case in regard to railways, where the workman has to deal with such powerful organisations as railway companies undoubtedly are, organisations which have large representation in Parliament, large influence in judicial circles, great resources for fighting legal cases, and for taking advantage of every loophole to escape liability.
A case illustration the wider influence wielded by a large organisation over a smaller and sectional one was the recent inquiry into the Workmen's Compensation Act. Only the larger societies were invited to give evidence, and the A.S.R.S. was one of these.
What has all this to do with engiemen? Everything. An engeinemen is liable to the same pitfalls as other railway employees, though at the present time he is in a unique position, consequent on the changes in railway working, which affect him more than any other, though they affect others also in a somewhat lesser degree. Most of these risks he undoubtedly runs in common with the majority of his co-workers in the running departments. In regard to accidents, hours, legal necessities, he is on common ground with the guard, the signalman, the shunter, and the platelayer. Hence the greater the strength of the organisation which he joins the greater the security. A recent manifesto issued by the A.S.R.S. show that during the last four and a half years 78 cases of long hours by drivers and firemen had been reported to the Board of Trade, 56 drivers, firemen, and cleaners had been represented at inquests, and 37 at Board of Trade inquiries, 176 drivers, firemen, and cleaners' compensation case had received attention, and 32 legal cases had been fought on behalf of these grades, four of which were manslaughter cases, in which an acquittal as secured. These results prove that a strong organisation like the A.S.R.S. does what it sets out to do -- it protects and it protects without distinction of grade.
These general results, however, have recently received striking additional force from a number of special cases. We need only refer to the Cudworth case, which is too recent to require further particularisation. Since tha case there is the one at Huddersfield last week, which is in striking contrast to the Stratford case, where Webster has been put on his trial for manslaughter. As the latter case is sub juice we cannot, of course, comment on it at this stage, but the Huddersfield case is a striking testimony to the advantage of the A.S.R.S. for enginemen. Here, notwithstanding the action of the company in dismissing Haigh, the coroner's jury acquitted him from any criminal neglect, and though he has lost his employment as a consequence of the fatal mistake, he is a free man. Both the local branch and the head office put forward every exertion, and Mr. Bell was present at both the Board of Trade inquiry and the inquest. Two other cases relating to compensation are of great importance to enginemen. The first was tried in the Court of Appeal on Thursday. An engine drive named Lake on the North Eastern had signed off at Trafalgar Station and was walking along the line to his allotment garden, where he was knocked down and killed. The case for compensation was taken up by the A.S.R.S., and the County Court judge allowed the claim. The company appealed, but the Court of Appeal upheld his decision. Another case, reported in this issue, is that of the late Driver Henshaw, who was killed at Tonteg. This case was also carried to the Court of Appeal by the company, and won for the widow of the A.S.R.S. The details will be found elsewhere. All these cases, successfully fought, show that the business of the society is so carried on that it does that which professes to do. We commend these cases to the enginemen of the country, and urge them to join our ranks in order that we may be still stronger to work their behalf. The same invitation is extended to all grads of railwaymen, for whom the society is prepared to work and to whom it extends the right hand of welcome.
19TH MAY 1905
PART II
Last week we sought to show that both in its general and special aspects the A.S.R.S. had proved its capacity to serve enginemen. That, however, does not exhaust the good which has been done on their behalf. We pointed out that the larger and more powerful (and we may add the more comprehensive) the organisation the greater is its influence. But in addition to this influence is the energy which it has displayed in being the pioneer of many movements for the benefit of enginemen. Take, for instance, the Accidents Bill of 1900. This bill was the outcome of a Royal Commission, at which the whole of the evidence submitted on behalf of the men was organised by and presented by the A.S.R.S. We had a direct representative on the Commission in the person of Mr. Walter Hudson, and it cannot be denied that the result has been to benefit all employees in the running departments, enginemen included. For the latter several distinct advantages were entirely and solely as the direct result of A.S.R.S. efforts. The same is true in regard to the reduction of hours. No one can deny that the Hours Act of 1893 was the result of the effects of the A.S.R.S., and that it has materially benefited enginemen, as well as other grades. Nor can it be denied that many enginemen at the time bitterly and mistakenly opposed this movement rendering a great disservice to their fellows by their opposition, just as today they are doing the same regard to local alterations and national movements for a further reduction. For instance, quite recently seven sets of relief men have been appointed at Bradford (G.N.) in consequence of representations made to the Board of Trade by and through the A.S.R.S. Yet these efforts of are being discounted and the society blamed by the same class of men who opposed the general movement referred to, because in some cases it reduces their individual gains and interferes with their efforts to obtain overtime. We may point out also that all the pioneer work in reference to the present position and future prospects of enginemen has been the work of this journal and the officers of the A.S.R.S It was we also who first drew the attention of the men to the results which are being achieved by the new policy of heavier trains and bigger engine. Both in the columns of the Review and in the speeches of the General Secretary of the A.S.R.S. and other officials these facts were collared and their significance driven home. This energy and alertness, this quickness to seize hold of the essential facts of the position, have been the main factors in focussing the attention of the men on the necessity for reform, and they were made prior to any attempt at programme making or even before any thought of a National Conference had been mooted. The A.S.R.S. may, therefore, justly claim credit as the pioneer of any movement during recent years for the improvement in the conditions of enginemen.
Nor is this all. The present Federation is the outcome of the efforts put forward by the A.S.R.S., and we hope to show that it will not be the fault of this society if it does not succeed in achieving the results which were hoped for from its adoption. We would, however, point out that the present is not the first attempt which has been made to end the division which exists and to achieve a working agreement which would end once and for all the mutually destructive rivalries which have proved so fatal to the prosperity of enginemen as a class. In 1890, at the Annual General Meeting in Belfast, a resolution was adopted instructing the then General Secretary "to approach the various railway servants' Trade Union societies with a view to the adoption of a working agreement, in order to secure a combination of members of all societies in any movement undertaken to improve the condition of railway workmen, and the General Secretary be instructed to confer with them on the subject and report to the next Executive Committee. If necessary to carry out these negotiations, a conference shall be arranged between the Executive Committee and the proper officers of such railway servants' societies." As a result of this resolution, a conference of the general secretaries of the four societies then existent was held in Leeds on November 24th, 1890, when a memorandum of agreement was drawn up, which was signed by each of those present, and which contained a draft of a working arrangement. What was the further result? Briefly, it was this. The E.C. of the A.S.R.S. endorsed the agreement and sanctioned a further conference. The Scotch society also agreed to it, and eventually amalgamated with the A.S.R.S. The General Railway Workers' Union attended the second conference and referred the matter to their delegate meeting, but nothing seems to have come of it, but the Associated Society of Enginemen and Firemen, although their then General Secretary (Mr. Sunter) signed the original memorandum, at their meeting on March 24th, 1891, declined to allow him to attend any further meetings respecting federation of the societies, and when the proposed terms of federation were submitted to them in June of the same year declined to accept them without a word of explanation or comment. In his report to the Annual Meeting in Birmingham in 1891 and late Mr. Harford used the following weighty words: "These terms were of a simple character and in no sense intended as a menace to the companies, but a defence for the men. The second clause was framed so as to ensure due consideration of every dispute where extreme measures were considered necessary, and this in itself afforded a sufficient guarantee against rash or precipitate action, so that the companies, as well as the men, were secured from the evil of rash, ill judged efforts. But, nevertheless, the signatories to the agreement would have been able to act as an emergency committee, taking prompted and decided action with little delay. Moreover, the agreement would have formed a basis for a more elaborate scheme, should such have been found necessary for the future. But for the Associated Society of Enginemen and Firemen it seems to have been even too far reaching, simple as it was, for the Executive Committee of that society forbade their General Secretary to attend any meetings of the other railway societies until the aforesaid societies had submitted their proposed scheme for federation to the Executive Committee of that society for approval. Then follows a history of the further negotiations, a copy of the proposals submitted, and the refusal of the Executive of the A.S of E. & F. to accept same, and the report closes with these words: "It will thus be seen that in deference to the wishes of our members, who were desirous of a federation or working agreement with the three other societies, we were the first to make overtures. In one instance only have they been accepted, in another they have required three months; consideration, while in the third they have been rejected without any counter proposals being put forward in their place Let no one charge this society with being the obstacle to either an amalgamation of the whole of them, or a federation or working agreement with them."
All this, it may be said, is ancient history. So it is, and we do not recall it to rake up old sores or re-open old wounds. On the contrary, it is simply to shoe that the A.S.R.S. policy has always been one of unity and a desire for a working agreement, as the lowest minimum which was possible in the interests of the men employed on our railways. The proof of this is seen in the fact that the passing of Mr. Sunter and an apparently rowing friendliness between the tow societies led to fresh overtures being commenced in 1903. Again, it was the A.S.R.S. who first began to make approaches. At the Special General Meeting held in London in January 1903, the following resolution was adopted: "That the delegates attending the Special General Meeting of the A.S.RS. are pleased to find much better feeling now exists between the members of the two societies, and trust that the time is not far distant when a federation or amalgamation f the two societies will take place, and with that object in view we instruct the E.C. to take the matter into consideration at the March sitting of that body." Accordingly, in March the matter was discussed, and the two E.C.'s were asked to meet to draw up a scheme. The two committee's met in Leeds on May 18th, 1903, but the Associated Society intimated they could not consider any scheme of amalgamation, and so eventually a scheme of federation was agreed upon, which has since been ratified by both societies. This scheme of federation has now been in force for practically two year, and a joint conference of delegates has recently been held with a view of remedying the evils which are admittedly rife in the terms of employment of enginemen. We propose next week to consider how far this federation meets the necessities of the case, and what obstacles if any, are likely to interfere with its ultimate success.
26TH MAY 1905
PART III
In our last issue we gave brief resume of the efforts which had been made to bring about a federation of the two societies at present catering for enginemen, but on looking further into the mater we find an abortive attempt at federation was made in 1900 to achieve this result, and that the overtures in this case came from the Associated Society. The reason of its failure was the indifference and apathy of the men themselves only a very few of them voting when given the opportunity either for or against the proposals. We have now to consider federation itself. In an article we published in 1899 on this question Mr. F.W. Evans stated: "To be effective it should be something more than a pooling of funds. There should be agreement of purpose and principle between the bodies professedly uniting. Without it strength and effectiveness may not be increased, and discord would be emphasised by near neighbourhood. What I think every engineman and fireman anxious for true unity and advancement of railwaymen labour could and should do is to throw in his lot with those who give force to their anxiety by being fast members of the A.S.R.S. It is the greatest engine men's union, the greatest railwaymen's union, and the only one that has espoused and fought for the great cause of Labour on railways." This quotation puts the question in a nutshell. In all true federation there must be "agreement of purpose and principle." Providing this agreement exists the actual scheme of federation itself, while not unimportant, is not vital. If this agreement does not exist no scheme, however admirably drawn up and however perfect, can succeed. As we have already seen, the resolution inviting the Conference spoke of the "much better feeling which exists" as a reason for moving in the matter, and at the Conference on May 13th, 1903, Mr. W.G. Loraine, in opening the proceedings s aid: "Seeing that the Amalgamated Society had given the invitation for that Conference, they would make a strong effort to come to a thorough working agreement to enable them to improve the conditions of employment, not only of locomotivemen, but of railwaymen in general." That was the A.S.R.S. view. The other side was put by Mr. Fox, who stated he "supported the good feeling which had already been expressed, and he took credit for having killed a good deal of that feeling of antagonism which had existed....... If they could show the companies that they were prepared to work in harmony, and instead of sectionally in all movements in the future they would act collectively, they would consider differently from what they had done in the past........ He did not think it was necessary for a man to have been himself in the signal box before he could render assistance to signalmen, or that a man should be on the footplate in order to sympathise with the enginedriver when worked unduly." These statements would appear to indicate the existence of that "agreement of purpose and principle" on which a basis of successful federation might have been reared. The policy of exclusiveness is definitely repudiated. No longer is it contended that "the Jews must have no dealings with the Samaritans," but, on the contrary, it is admitted that enginemen may render assistance to signalmen, and vice versa that signalmen and other grades may help enginemen. That was the position in May, 1903. Everything pointed to a successful working agreement. The federation was ratified by the governing bodies of each society, and many sanguine souls believed that a new era was about to commence for Labour on railways. Are these high hopes to be fulfilled? Were the professions, intentions, and desires outlined at the Conference in May, 1903, sincere? Not only the existence of the Federation but the future of railway labour depends largely upon that answer.
We may say at once we are quite aware that our object in considering this question and our motives in putting it forward at the present time may be misconstrued. That we must risk. The question is so important, its bearing on the future so momentous, the danger of the A.S.R.S. and ro the cause of enginemen so acute that it must be faced and faced now. It must be faced in the interests of federation itself, for if there has been any departure from that "agreement of purpose and principle" to which we have alluded, or if the Federation is simply being made the cover to more effectively propagate the policy of exclusiveness to which as a society the A.S.R.S. has always been opposed, then the Federation must be brought back to its original intention and scope, or the whole question must again be reconsidered in the light of the new situation which arises in consequence. At a later stage we propose to show once again how fatal to all improvement this policy is, but for the present out inquiry must be restricted to finding out from letters and printed documents how the matter stands at present. The first hitch occurred over the L & Y movement. One section wanted a purely loco movement, another wanted "all grade movement." The A.S.RS. sanctioned an all grade movement. This displace those who desires the "sectional" one, and as a result the efforts of all came to naught. We are not concerned here with apportioning the blame for this failure. It is the facts which have been brought to light as a consequence which concern us. The Bristol correspondent wrote in the Associated Society's Journal the following note, which was allowed to appear:-
I notice at a meeting at Openshaw that some very adverse criticism was launched at the E.C. of the A.S.R.S. over the Lancashire and Yorkshire movement, and I must say they fully deserve it all, and more, for recent events have proved conclusively that Mr. Bell and the majority of his E.C. do not want federation, and are only using same as a stepping stone to amalgamation; that neither Mr. Bell nor his E.C. has the interests of enginemen and firemen at heart; that the E.C. is entirely subservient to Mr. Bell, and not Mr. Bell to the E.C.; and if enginemen and firemen in the A.S.RS. would only think a little they would at once leave that society and come over to our ranks in a body, and then, given the Certificate Bill, enginemen would look after themselves -- as they will have to do so far as the A.S.R.S. is concerned.
We called attention to this note on November 11th, 1904, and in December of last year the Executive Committee of the A.S.R.S. passed a resolution characterising its appearance as "grossly unfair," and stating that it "ought to be withdrawn and an apology tendered by the responsible body, who are signatories to a federation scheme promoted essentially to bring about a better understanding and amicable feeling." We have not heard of any apology being tendered nor of its withdrawal. On the contrary, the evidence that the policy foreshadowed in this communication, namely, that of seeking to seduce the loco. members of the A.S.R.S. from their allegiance to it and the securing of their transference to the Associated Society, with a renewal of the old policy of exclusiveness expressly repudiated in May, 1903, has grown at an alarming pace. Both these objects are definitely and openly stated in a letter addressed to a driver at Leeds by the general secretary, Mr. Fox. The letter reads as follows:-
ASSOCIATED SOCIETY OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND FIREMEN
From 44, Park Square. October 20th, 1904
Dear Sir, I am pleased to receive the application from you for terms to transfer to our organisation, and also to read that you were pleased with the meeting on Sunday. We have no terms whereby we may accept individual members as transfers, but if we get an application from twelve or more enginemen and firemen the E.C. have power to consider it, and if satisfactory to them they can accept such a number into our association. I believe there are a good many more like yourself who would be willing to come over, and if you asked my opinion about the matter the whole of the enginemen and firemen require to be in an organisation where they have the full control of their own affairs, it is the only possible way of successfully dealing with the requirements of locomotive men.
Perhaps we may hear from you further on.
With best wishes, Yours faithfully
A. Fox
General Secretary
Here we have all the old objectionable policy stated in its naked simplicity -- the belief in an exclusive society for engienmen, coupled with an invitation to desert the A.S.R.S. and join the Associated Society. Notwithstanding this evidence the Executive Committee of the A.S.R.S. decided to remain faithful to the Federation, and decided to agree to the proposal for the calling of a National Conference to consider the conditions of enginemen. They contented themselves by officially calling the attention of the Associated Society to those documents, but we cannot learn that this policy has anywhere been officially repudiated or that its officers have been censured for departing from the scope and purpose of the Federation. On the contrary, the evidence of this departure does on increasing, as we shall presently prove.
But note how the Associated Society behave under much more mild treatment. The Ayslebury accident occurred at the end of December, and we stared "More than one of the victims was a member of the Associated Society of Enginemen and Firemen, and it is peculiarly unfortunately that they were not represented at the Board of Trade inquiry, and did not make more use of the opportunity which the inquest afforded." This mild criticism, founded on evidence submitted to us at the time, and since confirmed as correct by a resolution passed at the Executive Committee of the A.S.R.S. in March, and by the report of the Board of Trade Inspector, was trumpeted abroad as a direct attack on the Associated Society, and as a breach of the Federation. Nay, it is even described by Mr. Fox, in a letter to the A.S.R.S. Toton Branch secretary, dated July 13th, 1904, as a "diabolical attempted" to damage that society. There is much more in that letter to which we may refer hereafter, but for the present we are content to point out that the very society which had already broken both the letter and the spirit of the Federation is extremely sensitive under such mild criticism as we ventured to put forward, not in order to damage that society as stated, but to protect the interests of the enginemen and firemen on our railways.
2ND JUNE 1905
PART IV
In order to arrive at any just estimate of the prospects of the chances of a successful federation we laid it down as an anxious that cannot be disputed that there must be "agreement of purpose and principle." Such agreement was expressed at the time of federation, but it has been seriously departed from, and it be borne in mind that the A.S.R.S. were not the first to make the departure. Of this we have already given indisputable evidence, and we have shown that a very mild criticism on our part provoked a feeling of rancour and a display of hostility quite out to proportion to the occasion. We stated nothing which was not true, and which subsequent events have confirmed to the letter. That criticism was as "water is to wine" compared with the statements continued to appear in the Associated Journal. Here are a few specimens from its February issue: In a letter on "The Value of Federation" "J.B." writes: "I now believe that federation will be useless to either side until all the locomotive men have the good sense to quit the A.S.RS." Then follows a s strong attack on Mr. Bell, and a misquote and unfair statement. "Again I see in our Journal that in an interview someone had with him, he says that enginemen creep up a bank to save coal, and then run at excessive speed down the other side, thus making it clearly understood that the recent accidents caused by high speed run by unsuitable engine was the man's own fault. Is this the right man to represent the footplate men?" Needless to say, Mr. Bell never made any such statement, and the inference is, therefore, entirely wrong. With regard to the policy of seducing members of the A.S.R.S., the writer is apparently quite in agreement, for he remarks, "Now, what man of sense, reviewing the benefits of the A.S.RS. at 5d. and ours at 6d., would hesitate for one moment between the two?" and he adds, significantly, "I myself know many men who have quitted the A.S.R.S. to take up our benefit." In the same issue "Opportunity" is allowed to follow up the same line of argument. He states, after throwing doubt on Mr. Bell's support of loco. men, "the only way I can see out of the difficulty is. for the locomotive fraternity in the A.S.R.S. to demand a working committee of their own fraternity to conduct their own affairs, and appoint a locomotive leader to work in conjunction with Mr. Fox on their behalf, or there is another course they can pursue, and that is to come over to the Associated Society en bloc, with a proportionate amount of capital to cover their liabilities in the one organisation." These quotations, which could be multiplied almost indefinitely, prove that whatever was the original intention with that society entered into the Federation they have now seriously departed from its spirit. But there are other proofs existing of the failure of the Associated Society to grasp the fundamental principle underlying any successful federation. And it is to these we now desire to draw attention. These proofs are to be found in letters written by the general secretary, Mr. Fox. That gentleman has lately cultivated the habit, if not the art, of writing letters on every conceivable occasion. These letters have at least one virtue. They are candid, if not always correct. In order to understand the one we are now about to quote, it is necessary to remind our readers that at the National Conference at Leeds Mr. Rimmer, the Wigan Branch representative of the A.S.R.S., was charged by some members of the Associated Society with acting contrary to certain instructions said to have been given him as a result of a joint meeting, At the Conference Mr. Rimmer indignantly denied that he had received any such instructions, but in spite of this denial it was persisted in. The Wigan Branch, therefore, passed a resolution confirming this denial, which was sent to us to published and Mr. Fox was also asked to insert this denial in the Monthly Journal of his society. Instead of doing so, he forwarded the following letter:-
ASSOCIATED SOCIETY OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND FIREMEN
8, PARK SQUARE, LEEDS
APRIL 25TH, 1905
Dear Sir, Your request for me to publish a resolution for your branch in our Journal seems to me to be a little far fetched, especially so when you are very anxious to vindicate Mr. Rimmer's conduct at the Conference. It may appear to you to be all right and to your branch, but you must not lose sight of the fact that whilst perhaps Mr. Rimmers claims that he is the only sensible man alive, that there are others of us who have at least as much common sense as keeps us going, although we cannot hope to get as much as Mr. Rimmer has. I am sure if you had seen the way he showed his spleen on each occasion when he could not have all his own way at the Conference you would, like myself and many others, at once agree that he is not the perfect man he claims to be. I always allow myself that every man has a right to an opinion, and I also allow that when a man honestly express an opinion he has no right to be condemned, even if he differs from somebody else, but you know that when one sets themselves up as an authority and no one else is allowed to know anything, then I think they are going a bit too far. The business of the Conference will be reported in the minutes, copies of which, no doubt, each branch will be supplied with, and so far as I am concerned, I do not think I have any right to publish any statements that branches of an opposition society care to move in the columns of our "Journal."
I think you will agree that the advantage taken, and I might say mean advantage, in the columns of the "Railway Review" to oppose us both tooth and nail, and to attempt to ridicule us, does not warrant us in giving you any assistance in this matter.
Whilst we are pleased to publish anything of interest to our members and the locomotive fraternity, we certainly do not see anything of interest whatever to anyone unless it is to the members of the Wigan Branch of the A.S.R.S. in the minute you have sent.
Your faithfully,
A. Fox,
General Secretary
Mr. F. Mitchell,
A.S.R.S. Branch Secretary, Wigan.
We have here again displayed in all its naked simplicity the spirit of sectionalism and a denial of the elementary principles of federation, as well as a display of bitterness both against this paper and Mr. Rimmer which are absolutely opposed to the facts. how can there be any federation with "an opposition society" ? If two shops in the same street cater for the same class of customers they are rivals, and even in some senses may be said to be opponents, though it does not necessarily fellow that they are so. But if those two shops enter into an agreement and decide to work for a common object, i.e., if there be an agreement of purpose and principle between them, they cease to be opponents and become a federation. Rivalry and opposition cease and perfect friendless prevails. But if in spite of this agreement one shopkeeper persists in putting up notices advertising the superiority of his wares and under cover of the agreement seeks to attract the customers of the other can it be wondered at if the other shopkeeper retaliates, and can such retaliation be considered taking a mean advantage even though the latter shopkeeper possesses greater resources and superior facilities? That seems to us to be exactly the present position, and it is not for the aggressors to complain if they are hoist with their own petard. We shall refer only to one other letter. finding that statements were being circulated in the district by members of the Associated that the A.S.R.S. is a guards' society and not a locomotivemen's, the Toton Branch of the latter forwarded a resolution protesting against these statements to the general secretary, Mr. Fox, who, in the course of a long letter dated January 13th, 1905, replied: "Personally, I see nothing wrong in the statement that the A.S.R.S. is a guards' society. Sot it is. Ours is not a guards' society, because we do not want anybody else in but locomotivemen, so I do not see so very much wrong in that statement." How much prevarication is Mr. Fox prepared to condone? As it is put, the statement is much worse than a direct lie. The A.S.R.S. is a guards' society. We glory in the fact and the guards have reason to be proud of it and the work it has done on their behalf. But it is also a locomotivemen's society too. It is not only a society for locomotivemen, but the greatest locomotivemen's society, containing more loco. men than any other, and having a prouder record of work, and having achieved greater results, owing to the very fact that it is also a guards', signalmen's, and every other grades society.
Here, then, we have shown how, in both its official documents and in the letters which have been sent out, direct and incontrovertible evidence of a serious departure from the terms of federation exists. But a third method has been tried -- a method much more subtle -- a method much more difficult to deal with -- and a method much less straightforward than the candid utterances to which we have referred. It is the method of rumour, innuendo, and misrepresentation. The pen may be mightier than the sword but the tongue is capable of quite as much mischief. From East and West, from North and South, Dame Rumour comes with suggestions that the emissaries of the Associated Society are circulating statements amongst the loco. men calculated to injure the A.S.R.S. and to attache the personal character and reputation of its general secretary. These rumours relate chiefly to the District Railway settlement, and have reached us from places as far distant as Derby, Cardiff, and Bradford. The answer to them was given in the Derby Daily Telegraph of the 6th inst., and consisted of an absolute denial by Mr. Bell, which is borne out by the resolution adopted by the West Brompton Branch at is last meeting, as shown in another column. We are not so much concerned with personal aspect of the question as the bearing these rumours have on the good feeling which should and must exist if federation is to succeed. Mr. Bell is well able to take care of himself, but we must protest strongly against secret meetings, against the putting forth of statements, and against the circulation of injurious innuendoes where there is neither the person attacked present and no representative of the society affected given the opportunity to reply. We shall turn to other aspects of this question next week.
9TH JUNE 1905
PART V
We have seen that there has been a serious departure from that "agreement of purpose and principle" without which societies which are federated cannot expect to work harmoniously together. Such harmonious working is the essential basis any successful federation. The seriousness of the departure consists in its paralysing and destroying influence. We have shown conclusively that this departure did not originate with the A.S.R.S. The responsibility for the developments which have arisen rests elsewhere, and it is only reasonable that it should be places upon the right shoulders. It may be well, therefore, at this juncture, to analyse the causes which have produced the present crisis. They are important. They are simple, and they strike at the very root of the difficulty. Put in a nutshell it is this -- the Associated Society believes in a separate society for enginemen, managed by enginemen, and exclusively devoted to the interests of enginemen. It believes that such a society will best serve their interests and protect them in their employment. The men who compose that society (or shall we say those who control its policy?) quite honestly had that belief, and are perfectly justified in doing so, providing they can show first that the facts bear out their connection; secondly, that the presence of other grades in a society acts to their detriment, and thirdly, they have to prove that their sectional interests are greater than their common interests with other grades who serve the same employers. There is a fourth reason which would justify such exclusive action, and that is that the larger society did not, could not or would not meet their special needs. We shall examine these points one by one, but before we do so we propose to prove that we have not misrepresented the present aims of the Associated Society by quotations from their official Journal, and these quotations would also suggest that from the outset there was an ulterior motive in joining the Federation, which motive it is no longer attempted to conceal. What is that motive and object? It is to get all the enginemen in the A.S.R.S. to leave it and go over to them either en bloc or to wean them from their allegiance in twos and three until they weakened its position as the greatest engine men's union, and when they have succeeded in this to make a bold bid for those who have hitherto remained faithful to it. This would be lawful and indeed laudable purpose, providing t could be proved that a sectional union was the most effective way of protecting the interests of enginemen, but the methods by which such a result is sought to be achieved merit the condemnation of every honest man. T o enter into a federation for such an object is not exactly the way one would expect an "opposition society" to act. It is not playing the game fair. We gave instances of these methods in our previous issues which there is no need to repeat. We simply draw attention to them again as proofs of a settled policy, of an ulterior motive, of a deliberate attempt to achieve a purpose to which we are resolutely opposed, and which indeed furnished the main reason why the A.S.R.S.entered into the Federation at all.
Now for the proofs that we have in no way misrepresented either aims or the policy of the Associated Society. In the Bristol notes quoted previously occur these significant words: "If enginemen and firemen in the A.S.R.S. would only think a little they would at once leave that society and come over to our ranks in a body, and then, given the Certificate Bill, enginemen would look after themselves -- as they will have to do so far the A.S.R.S. are concerned." The innuendo in the last part of this precious note we have already disproved -- the former we will deal with shortly. In the February issue of the Journal and in the North London notes the following sentence appears: "The Aylesbury accident has clearly illustrated the necessity for locomotivemen being in a society composed of their own fraternity." We should have thought it proved exactly the opposite but "one never knows." The same incident can evidently be made to prove two exactly opposite and contradictory conclusions. In a letter in the same issue "J.B." say: "If the locomotivemen only had the good sense to amalgamate in one society we should then have about 27,000 men, and I firmly believe that within twelve months of such amalgamation we should have two thirds or more of the footplate men organised." With this we agree, provided the amalgamation is not into a sectional and distinct society for loco. men, which is the policy the writer advocates. In the April issue "The Minute Taker" says: "There is gradually dawning the fact that the A.S.L.E. & F. is the only society for locomotivemen, and it would pay the other grades forming the A.S.R.S. to transfer all the locomotive members over to it, and by doing reap the benefit of the locomotivemen's activity in receiving higher wages with shorter hours." It may be argued that these are only expressions of opinion by private members and represent only their own private views. If they stood alone that might be so, but they do not stand alone. In a letter to a Leeds driver quoted previously, Mr. Fox, the general secretary, says: "I believe there are a good many more like yourself who would be willing to come over, and if you asked my opinion about the matter the whole of the enginemen require to be in an organisation where they have the full control of their own affairs. It is the only possible way successfully dealing with the requirements of locomotivemen." Here, then, we get to the very root of the whole controversy, the basis of the whole disagreement, the cause why the Federation has not worked, and is not working so successfully as some of us hoped.
The question we have then to face is as to whether an organisation, consisting of loco. men and managed bt loco. men only, is "the only possible way to successfully deal with the requirements of locomotivemen." that is the issue, an issue deliberately raised by the Associated Society. It is an assertion which admits of but one answer. It is not true. It is a way, but not the only way. It is not even the best way, and it is because both past and present experience show that it is not the best way that we are profoundly opposed to it. Combination to be effective must be as comprehensive s the service itself. Isolated action is always weaker, and, lined action. In our first article we showed as a matter of common knowledge and firm established principle hat the larger the combination the greater its success. That is why enginemen have flocked to the standard of the A.S.R.S. in larger numbers than to the special union which caters for them alone. On the ground of principle and common sense, the sectional idea is wrong. It is not the only way, and certainly it is not the best way. Experience has condemned it even more emphatically. it has condemned it both on the positive and the negative side. On the positive side we have already given absolute proof that it is not necessary for enginemen to be in a society of their own. The A.S.R.S. has proved itself not only willing but able to protect the interests of enginemen, and to do it successfully. It has a record in that respect of which it has no need to be ashamed. In addition to the gains to individual loco. men, it has won concessions for them of no mean order. In 1872, in 1874, in 1890, and again in 1890 it won large concessions for the M.S. & L., the Great Northern, the Lancashire & Yorkshire, the Midland, the S.E., the L.&S.W., and other lines. These concessions were extensions of conditions of wages and hours previous;y granted to the Great Western and London & North Western men in 1867, conditions which have since been lost in consequence of the division which arose amongst loco. Lenin 1879 and 1880. On these lines in 1867 the following conditions were in vogue: Ten hours to constitute a day's work, and unless over 150 miles passenger were run or 120 by goods train, when mileage counted instead of hours. All driver to rise by regular yearly increments to 7s. per day and to 7s. 6d. on main line jobs, with £10 per year as good conduct bonus. One day per week in shed. Promotion from fireman to pivotman, then to driver and main line driver by seniority. These conditions have since been lost on both lines by the introduction of classification and trip systems, and they have been lost because the men were not in one society, and that society one which was comprehensive s the service itself. On the positive side, then, it is not true that a sectional society is the only possible way to deal successfully with the interests go loco. men. both in regard to benefits to individual men, in raising the general condition of the locomotive fraternity, in securing shorter hours and greater safety, no society has such a record of work to show as the A.S.R.S. How, then, can it be maintained that purely loco. society is the only possible way? Nor is it true on the negative side. The Associated Society is not the only attempt which has been made to organise the men into a distinctly loco. union. An attempt was made in 1866 and 1867, as we showed in a previous issue. It failed utterly. For a brief spell it met with some initial success but when tested by active and aggressive tactics it displayed the weakness which one would expect from a distinctly grade society. The society collapsed as a result of the N.E. strike in 1867. There are this who affirm that the G.W. classification system is a direct result of the starting of the Associated Society, as it at that time weakened and divided the men and gave the company the opportunity it sought. The Midland strike in 1887 was another glaring instance of the failure of a sectional movement, as the loco.
RAILWAY REVIEW
16TH JUNE 1905
PART VI
In discussion of any question it is necessary to find some common ground of agreement; some fundamental point from which it is possible to start together; some solid foundation on which to build. It is possible to find such a foundation in the present case? We believe it is. That common ground may be found in the fact that there 27,000 enginemen in the United Kingdom who believe in organisation, and who have given effect to their faith by joining one or other of the two societies to which they are eligible. That is a great and important factor in any discussion of the conditions and prospects of Trade Union organisation for this grade. Twenty seven thousand organised out of 55,000, or nearly 50 per cent., and most of these, doubtless, those in the higher and more responsible positions. But it is possible to carry the agreement still further. These 27,000 men ought to be in on society. Mr. fox says so. A writer in the Journal whom we quoted last week says so. And we say so, too. They ought to be in one society. We say it with all the earnestness, with all the persuasiveness, of which we are capable. Being in two societies spells division, impotence, and despair. Being in two societies is responsible for the want of progress which has marked enginemen and firemen during the last 25 to 30 years. It is responsible for the actual retrogression which has taken place on many lines, and especially on the Great Western and London and North Western. It is responsible for the impotence of the men in face of the very serious dangers which are now taking place on our railways today, and against which -- so long as the men are divided into societies -- it is a difficult to contend. It is not the principle of combination which is at fault, but the want of it. Imperfect organisation, while better than nothing, is not, and cannot be so effective as perfect organisation. "Divide and conquer" has ever been the policy of the employer, but here it is the folly of the men which gives them their opportunity, which wantonly and wilfully the effectiveness of their Trade Union faith. On this point, then, we are all agreed -- all loco. men should be in one society. But which society? That, we submit, is a most important question, and one not so easily settled. It id where the difficulties have always arisen, largely, we fear, because the subject has not been approached in the dry light of pure reason, free from prejudice and from rancour, and with that desire to put first the advancement of enginemen, which should characterise every consideration of so important a question. Candidly, we would make every reasonable sacrifice and concession to secure a really satisfactory settlement and amalgamation of the forces of enginemen, but we think a sectional union a mistaken idea, and we hold that we have history and experience on our side.
Last week we attempted to show that sectionalism had failed, and we gave that as our main reason for opposing the attempt of the Associated Society to capture the enginemen members of the A.S.R.S., either a few at a time or en bloc. As we have already stated, it is our firm belief that all enginemen (meaning by that term those employed in the locomotive department) should be in one union. There are two ways in which this might be brought about, and only two. Either the A.S.R.S. enginemen must leave it and join the Associated, in which case they would have to forego the whole of the benefits for which they have paid, and all the advantages to be derived from membership therein, or the Associated Society must join its forces to the Amalgamation Society, in which case its members would lose little or nothing and gain much. One writer in the Journal suggests that it would pay the other grades to transfer the locomotive members of the A.S.R.S., but the only way in which he suggests they would obtain payment is by the reflex activity which a united enginemen's society would bring to bear upon their conditions. A one sided bargain, surely. Another suggests that loco. men should go over in a body and take their proportion of the funds. That is a still wilder suggestion, and one clearly bordering on the impossible. All these suggestions, approaches, attempts to secure that the locomotivemen shall leave the A.S.R.S. and go over to the Associated Society are no doubt made in good faith, and considered to be both sound and feasible plans for uniting enginemen in one society. But they lack any real grip with the essential facts of the case. It is impossible for the loco. men to leave the A.S.R.S. in a body, except at immense sacrifice, at great risk to themselves, and with the more than possible likelihood of the sacrifice being all in vain. The other grades could not be expected to hand over any proportion of the accumulated funds of the A.S.R.S. We do not think they could do so, and we are quite sure an apportionment on any fair and equitable basis would be impossible. On the other Hand, for the Associated Society to amalgamate to the A.S.R.S. is both practicable and possible, would injure no one, would assist everyone, and would bring about that consummation so perfervidly desired by the writers to whom we have referred, viz., all in one society, and with the added advantage of having in all their movements the assistance, moral and practical, of the other grades. but will it be believed? The very men who have been openly advocating the secession of A.S.R.S. loco. men complain bitterly and resent strongly any suggestion of amalgamation from the A.S.R.S. side. In the Bristol Notes, to which we have referred on two or three previous occasions, it is stated that "recent events have proved conclusively that Mr. Bell and the majority of his E.C. do not want federation, and are only using same as a stepping stone to amalgamation." We should have thought this was a virtue rather than a crime since they are so anxious to amalgamate the A.S.R.S. loco. men. Mr. Fox puts the case even more strongly in one of his letters. He says: "We were in all sincerity when we endeavoured o bring it (federation) into force, but regret to say we find very little spirit of federation on the Amalgamated Society's side of the game. I do find an evident desire to absorb us in our entirety and snuff us out as it were." To absorb and to snuff out are not exactly convertible terms, nor had we any idea that federation was a game.
The fact of the matter is, it is time to speak plainly. We want to know if enginemen are mere cards in a game which a few men are playing, like those other accomplished hist players who are said to be playing for the body of the unionist party while the interests of the country and the Empire are sacrificed. Or must the interests of enginemen be paramount, greater than prejudices, greater than officials, greater even than societies. We repeat the interests of enginemen require, and require imperatively, that they should be in one society. Federation can never be successful without agreement o purpose and principle. Amalgamation ensures it, nay, compels it. Experience teaches that sectional unions cannot in the nature of things be so successful as a large and powerful organisation composed of all grades, and comprehensive as the service itself. Even if that were not so, it would be impossible at this stage to split up the Amalgamation Society and subtract the enginemen from it. The only logical, reasonable, safe, and effective course is for the Associated Society to decide to throw in its lot with them. The aims of the organisations are largely alike. Their methods are not entirely dissimilar. We admit that it is a perfectly natural, and to some extent laudable, desire to maintain an independent existence. We admit, too, there are differences here and there in the composition of the two societies which would require adjustment. We know there are other difficulties of detail also existing, but none of these are, or ought to be, incapable of adjustment. The question at issue is one of principle --- a principle which is admitted by the acceptance of federation. This principle is that the larger the organisation the more far reaching its influence, the greater its ramifications, the more composite its character, the more likely will it be to serve the cause of enginemen. These articles have been written, not with a view of widening a breach we saw with regret growing wider and wider, but with the hope that a real unity based on a common organisation working from a common centre for a common cause might result. We have relied for our material mainly on letters and printed documents, and have sought to discuss this great question sanely and calmly, without prejudice, and without passion. The result must rest with the enginemen themselves. To them the matter is one of great and serious importance, and we ask them not to rest until they have brought themselves into line with other Trade Unions and reaped the reward of complete and well directed organisation. Next week we propose to complete this series by a review of the situation as it affects other grades.
RAILWAY REVIEW
23RD JUNE 1905
PART VII
We have seen that the interests of enginemen demand that all the men who are organised should be in one society, and we have ventured to assert, as things are at present, the most successful plan is for an amalgamation of the two existing societies, the smaller and more exclusive one giving up its separate organisation, and becoming part of the larger one, which takes in all grades. In putting forward this thesis, we do not forget that there is a great deal which might be said in favour of sectional organisations, providing we could start de novo. We are aware that in the United States of America such organisations have been eminently successful, and that from the point of view of organisation they have succeeded in obtaining the support of a large proportion of each grade, and, therefore, of securing agreements with the companies by mutual consent in a manner hitherto impossible in this country. We regularly receive in exchange a number of the monthly journals issued by these societies, and they are certainly superior to any of the magazines or papers issues in behalf of Labour in this country, and they record a progress and a success which we can only look upon with envy. The railwaymen of America can certainly teach us something in the way of successful organisation, and yet in some way they are far behind us in this country. They pay too much attention to merely material success -- the almighty dollar is to much with them soon and late. As a consequence, both in regard to the hours of labour and risks of occupation they are far behind us. They work fat longer and their risks are very much greater -- their influence on the general public and with the Legislature is far below that of the A.S.R.S. in this country. In wages only have they the advantage. Part of this nonsuccess in matters quite as important as wages is due to their sectionalism. It is true they are federated, but it is only in a loose way. They have separate unions for conductors, for enginemen, for firemen, for telegraphers (signalmen), for trackman (platelayers), for clerks, etc., and though there are sectionally strong they are collectively weak. As a consequence they have only been able to enforce their will in one direction, and that not necessarily the most important; for "Life" is more than wages and leisure greater even than the almighty dollar. On the whole, therefore, we prefer the English method, and consider that in actual results it has proved the more successful with less numbers, because it has been more wisely directed.
But we must not blind ourselves to its defects. Numbers are not to be despised. We can say we have a substantial majority of each grade organised, the ripe fruits of organisation be denies to us. No possible good can come from refusing the recognised facts. "Facts are chiefs that wanna ding." And the one fact that stares us in the face is that the majority of railwaymen are still outside the organisation which seeks to gather them all in, notwithstanding the excellent, the great, nay, even the mighty, works it has accomplished in face of what appeared almost insurmountable difficulties. It may be well then to ask if there are any defects in our methods which are in some manner responsible for this failure. In our opinion, there are, and we venture to assert that until these defects are remedied there is some excuse for the advocate of sectionalism. Remove these defects and such excuse vanishes. John Stuart Mill has point out: "One of the strongest hindrances to improvement, up to a rather advanced stage, is an inveterate spirit of locality." Now, sectionalism is only locality in another form. It is a hindrance to improvement when it bulk too large, when it is magnified into the be-all and end-all of organisation, but as there is a proper limit to and a worthy spirit of locality, so there is a proper pride in and a legitimate interest to be taken in the grade of employment to which a person belongs. The analogy furnished by this illustration of locality is, in fact, capable of being carried to very good lengths, and of furnishing any useful lessons. Railway employment s divided into grades, districts, and companies. For purposes of government the country is divided into villages, towns, and counties. The interests of the country are superior to those of the village, town, or county, and yet there is a local patriotism which is exceedingly important. The village, the town, and the county are distinct entities, each with its legitimate interests and its own local life and government. So it should be, and we venture to say must be in any organisation which is to cater for railway employment as a whole. Each grade should have some kind of separate government; each district has it own problems and should have its own local organisation to meet and solve them -- the staff of each company again should have its form of meeting its special needs. All needs, risks, common, and problems which are common to all should be dealt with nationally. This has been to some extent realised -- hence we have had and have grade movements, District Councils, all grade movements confined to specific companies, and national movements, both grade and general. But these divisions and interests have been dealt with spasmodically. There has been no settled policy in regard to them, no definite line of demarcation, and no well thought out plan of section. It is not easy to arrange the area or define the duties of a locality, but in this country it has had to be done, and we have wisely thrown upon the district itself the duties of self government, subject to certain well defined limits, the form of government only having been settled by the State, such as Parish Councils, District Councils, Town Councils, and County Councils. This is one of the defects which must be remedied if success is to be achieved. A well thought out plan of government, giving to each part its proper sphere of influence, defining its limits, and then throwing upon each section, grade, district, or company responsibility of working out its own problems is, in our opinion, an essential to success.
Another problem which also demands attention is that of the apportionment of sacrifice to risk. Just as the Governmental part is too rigid, so is it when we come to the question of finance. All railway employment is not equal in risk, and the need is unequal so also are the means to make sacrifices unequal. to have only two scales of contributions and benefits is not conductive to the highest success in organisation, where risks of unemployment are so unequal. The clerk has not quite the same needs as the guard or engine driver. The porter and platelayer cannot afford the same contribution as the better paid grades. But they do need the benefit of organisation just the same, and it is necessary in a union which has to meet such a variety of needs and such differences of circumstances to adapt itself to them all. Only such adaptability can command success. given due attention to these defects, and there is not an individual nor a grade who can put forward any legitimate excuse for remaining outside the organisation. Each individual will find his subscription and his benefits proportioned to his circumstances; each grade and district and company's employees will find that elasticity of Government which will best meet its special or local needs, and the whole will be bound up in one great, one powerful, because united whole. such a policy is the true policy for enginemen, as it is for all other grades. given the whole of the 27,000 organised enginemen in one society, we have then a solid basis from which to work, and we do not think the rest could long remain outside. They would then not stand or fall alone, but would have the immense moral and practical support of the other grades as well. We invite the attention of all enginemen to these problems, and hope they will not rest content until amalgamation has laid the foundation of an efficient and powerful organisation on the lines here suggested.
A wise man is ready to strike a bargain with fate.
The wisest are this who ask much and then take half.
It is the coward who asks too little,
and the fool who imagines that he will receive without demanding.
H. SETON MERRIMAN