FEDERATION
RAILWAY REVIEW
20TH JULY 1900
FEDERATION WITH THE ASSOCIATED AN AMENDMENT
Sir, -- The scheme of federation agreed upon at the Leeds Conference in January last is, in one sense, much nearer perfection than either the members of that conference of your numerous correspondents appear to imagine. It is an admirable piece of work, and we ought to feel thankful towards all who took a part in it. That the claims of loco. men should have received the first consideration was only to be expected, seeing the conference was composed of members of that particular grade, but, at any rate, I think few of us will deny them credit for trying, as far as in them lay, to bring about a means whereby joint action would be assured in all future loco. movements.
The only serious fault to be found in the scheme lies in the constitution of the joint committee, and that, judging from the tone of the letters that have been written on the subject, appears to be the real bone of contention. Of course, it is only right and fair that loco. men should themselves be allowed to draft their own programme without the least interference on the part of any other grades, and there is not a single member of the A.S.R.S. that wishes to deny them their rights in that respect; but neither is it right that movements for all other grades should be under th direct control of loco. men. Yet that I precisely what will happen if the scheme is adopted in its present form.
Ley us suppose a loco. movement has failed to obtain the conditions asked for, and it is found necessary to further press the demands by a withdrawal of labour, then, under the scheme, the joint committee consisting of five enginemen and firemen of the A.S.R.S. and five members of the A.S.L.E. and F., shall be summoned together, and may recommend the withdrawal of labour. That is all right.
Now, let us suppose a movement of any other grades has fallen to obtain the conditions asked for, and it is found necessary to further press the demands by a withdrawal of labour, then, under the scheme, the same joint committee, consisting, mind you, of five enginemen and firemen of the A.S.R.S and five members of the A.S.L.E. & F., shall be summoned together, and may recommend the withdrawal of labour.
It is literally so. no other construction can be placed on clause d, governing as it does clauses a, b, and c. Members of the A.S.R.S. who don't happen to be loco. men will search the scheme in vain for any promise, much less guarantee, of support from the Associated. In its present form the scheme is a one sided affair, of that there can be no question whatever. What is wanted is a federation of the two societies, and that may be held by adopting the following amendment:
Strike out from clause c., the words "enginemen and firemen."
The joint committee would then consist of five members of the A.S.R.S. and five members of the A.S.L.E.& F. The A.S.R.S. section of the joint committee would have nothing to do with the drafting of loco. programmes.
Clause b., which reads, "All programmes for improved conditions for loco. men shall be drawn up at joint meetings of that grade and submitted for the approval of the E.C. of each society" would still be operative. All that would be requires would be for the A.S.R.S. to appoint five or even seven, or ten if need be, loco. men to meet an equal number of Associated members for the purpose of drafting programmes, but it isn't necessary, it isn't wise, nor fair, it isn't even expedient that the A.S.R.S loco. delegates should be entrusted with the responsibility of representing the A.S.R.S. when it becomes a question of joint action between that society and another.
I may be wrong, of course, but the scheme thus amended appears to me to be at once an ideal and a practical scheme, fair to both sides, and unfair to none on either side.
Will those interested in the question consider this proposal and let us hear what they think of it, providing, of course, our esteemed Editor will continue to great necessary space?
Yours, etc.,
AMALGAM
---------------
Sir, -- Your correspondent who signs himself " A Branch Secretary" would eventually allow no one to have an opinion but himself, and those who might be fortunate or unfortunate enough to think as he thinks. When he says that we think loco. men cannot be trusted, he puts the position the wrong way about. It is the loco. men who not only think, but say in the most practical manner possible that the other grade cannot be trusted, and must not be allowed two out of ten representatives.
When "A Branch Secretary" refers to our E.C. and extreme measures. he displays an entire Jack of knowledge of the scheme submitted to us to vote upon. The E.C. cannot consider "the question taking extreme measures" before they are "submitted," and they cannot be submitted to them unless are called together. Now what does the scheme say? It says if 75 per cent. of these ten loco. men agree, then the two E.C.'s are to be called. In that case, of course, the E.C. could consider it, but if, on the other hand, 75 per cent. of these ten loco. men are not agreed, there is no provision made for calling any E.C. together in that case, neither is there any power given to the E.C. over these ten loco. men even if they were called together. We had two specially summoned meetings, and I have asked the general secretary if he could define the position of the other grades in a movement that did not affect loco. men. If they wanted to come out to force their demand, and submitted their case to these ten loco. men who, for fear of having to come out in support of these other grades, refused the 75 per cent. support, and it may surprise "A Branch Secretary" to hear that even Mr. Bell will not undertake to define the position, although, no doubt, he has an option of his own, But we have got so awfully "democratic" that even a general secretary dare hardly have an opinion of his on and express it, and yet these people who make the position of affairs thus are those who are preaching the doctrine of confidence.
The position under the scheme is simply this: that if the loco. men want to come out to enforce a demand, they have not only the power to do so, but they have also the power to call the other grades who have not a voice with them. And, on the other hand, if the other grades want to come out, and the loco. men don't want to come with them, they can vote the movement by refusing the 75 per cent. majority, and the other grades have no redress without violating the scheme and driving true federation further away than ever. In fact it is a clear case of heads thy win and tails we lose, and the other grades are asked to tamely submit and believe that the loco. men, who will neither amalgamate with them nor trust them to the extent of two representatives out of ten, and their best and most loving friends, and the other grades are very naturally saying in reply, "It is all very fine to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me down stairs?" Your correspondent's statement about six to one is misleading, not so much in what he says in what he leaves unsaid, because out of over 600 branches there are only 155 that have the pains to vote on the scheme, and instead of 60,000 members having voted, there are not 5,000, which is not one third of the loco. members alone, to say nothing of the other grades. However distasteful this may be, it is a stubborn fact which cannot be shelved and replaced with sentiment.
No one will deny that the loco. men's position is an unhappy one, and that being admitted, another very painful fact must be admitted also by those who are not too sentimental to face facts -- and that is that loco. men have made the position what it is. It is not the other grades that have made it so,
Yours, etc.,
A. McLAREN
RAILWAY REVIEW
2ND FEBRUARY 1906
FEDERATION
Sir, To amalgamate the two societies, the A.S.L.E.&F. and the A.S.R.S., seems at present to many undesirable, and the federation of them in abeyance. Both are circumstances to be deeply lamented, but not abandoned.
Personally, I am in favour of amalgamation, as being the best machinery to accomplish our work and to defend and advance our position. Amalgamation is pre-eminently preferable to federation, as from it greater efficiency, greater discipline, and greater economy are effected: greater, indeed, are it potentialities. Amalgamation is the order of the day; industrial and social necessity compel it. Capitalists great and small see its advantages and potentialities; and, perceiving it is a good thing, they take hold of it with a firm grip, and essay to make the very best of it, saying to those that are not wise in their day, or that are pervicacious, stolid, or selfish, stand aside: we cannot, estimable in many respects though you be, tolerate your shortsightedness n this matter. so it must be with us. We, the rank and file, must say to those that look upon amalgamation with disfavour, apprehending something terrible, not to the societies but to themselves, we must say, stand aside, we can defend ourselves, render greater assistance, and secure greater advantages by a sympathetic collaboration with our fellow workers than by standing aloof, as in the past has been our custom and policy.
If at present amalgamation be impossible, though it ought not to be, then do let us strive to effectuate a sympathetic, genuine, and workable federation, which, in the absence of amalgamation, is a desideratum. Amalgamation or federation is now essential to our life; we must have it; without it we shall have in the future greater difficulty to live, much less thrive. Federation to the workers is much more advantageous than isolated unionism. Isolation is fraught with weakness, federation prosperity. While for a time isolated unionism may improve the conditions of a particular section of workers, yet a time will come when it will be unable to do so. Isolated unionism will never raise the workers to a state where they will have an adequacy f subsistence and comfort, but a sympathetic federation of Trade Unions would greatly assist to do so.
The arrangements for amalgamation or federation are not impracticable, and to procrastinate is fraught with folly. Valuable, fleeting time, in which we might secure much to our advantage is gliding away wasted! What is wanted is a sympathetic spirit of desire and purpose.
To amalgamate or federate is an exigency, a desideratum. Velleity will not achieve what we want, and one must subordinate one' promptings to aggrandise one's self to the general good of all.
Now, we must recognise that there are with many in the rank and file who give strong opposition not only to amalgamation, but to federation also. This we must recognise or we deceive ourselves. What occasions it? Can we dissect it and expose its folly? The amalgamation or federation of the different societies catering for different grades of railway-men will never be possible until grade distinction, fostered and emphasised by the individual, is repressed, if not dispelled. Why this abyss of grade distinction? Fatuity, indeed it is! We decry and deride social distinction in life outside our work, we perceive its folly, and have ofttimes felt the sting of its tyranny. Away with it, at least from us, or we shall by it be manacled for time indefinite.
It is notorious that but a mediocre of intelligence, education, and tuition is required to do the work of any of the various grades on the railway, be it packers or clerks, enginemen or signal-men, guards, shunters, or porters. So the intellectuality required of, and the education acquired generally, among railwaymen are not the cause of the fatuous distinction existent and emphasised by imbeciles only. Tradition is responsible for much, and is it not a fact notorious and incontrovertible that the different rates of pay existent are a potent, subtle actor, a determining cause of much grade distinction? The folly, the absurdity of it!
I would remind those that look disdainfully at others receiving less remuneration than they if you will not assist those receiving less remuneration than you to obtain what or about what you obtain, yours will inevitably fall to the level of theirs. Is it not a fact experienced and manifest that it one section of workers will not assist another to rise to the level of the highest, the lowest will inevitably bring down the highest to the level of the lowest, Watch the tendency of the times; benefit by history and experience; amalgamate!
Yours, etc.,
W.W.
THE RAILWAY REVIEW
9TH FEBRAURY 1906
AMALGAMATION OR FEDERATION, WHICH?
Dear Sir, The question of Amalgamation and Federation is still with us, and I hope it will stay with us until it is thoroughly settled, for to state the matter briefly, the present position is satisfactory to no one.
Perhaps some of us were too sanguine when we saw the federation agreement completed and hoped for too much, and consequently in contrasting our hopes and ideas of federation at its inauguration with the miserable result of a two years' test of it, our attitude towards it may be quite different to what it was when it received the blessing of our E.C.
As intimated in a recent front page article, the subject still requires thrashing out, but not in the style of the recent correspondence in the Review, which has touched upon the matter. It is not a question which will ever be settled by a correspondence between members of a sectional society and members of a society opposed to sectionalism; it is a question which each society must settle for itself without interference in their deliberations one from the other, and, therefore, in the first place, the members of the A.S.R.S. must settle the question of amalgamation and federation for themselves; firmly, on principle, and without any personal feeling whatever.
In the branch reports I see Lydney a short time ago passed the following resolution; "That, after considering the existing differences between the A.S.R.S. and the A.S.L.E.&F., we are of opinion that the two E.C.'s should at once take the necessary stapes to bring about a sound working arrangement, failing which, the rank and file should take the matter up themselves." Now I haven't the slightest idea on what line of argument such a resolution was based, but on the face of it, it is simply a pious resolution, with the exception of the last item recommending the rank and file to take the matter up themselves. It calls upon the E.C.'s to "take the necessary steps" without so much as hinting what the "necessary steps" are, and implies that a sound working arrangement is possible, which I very much doubt, after the present unsatisfactory result. Ah, Lydney.
"The quality of mercy is not strained."
I have yet a little faith left in man, but after reading the joint E.C. minutes I have absolutely no faith in the two E.C.'s bringing about a sound working arrangement, and even if there was a remote possibility of its coming to pass it would savour of brutality to direct the two E.C.'s to do it. Our E.C. has the federation agreement to work by. They have worked to it, and we have the result. It would be wrong to ask the two E.C.'s to settle the matter for us, even if they could. As an administrative body they have done their duty; it is now time the rank and file took the matter up themselves.
In what manner shall we take the matter up ourselves is the question, and I would suggest a course of action. Put your editorial dignity on one side for a moment, please Mr. Editor, whilst I commandeer the Review. In the first place, what we do want is no person matter whatever. Such must not be tolerated, and if anyone is indiscreet enough to introduce it may the blue pencil do the needful. What I suggest is this: Open the "Forum" for the discussion, the opinions, and the convictions of members of the A.S.R.S. on "What is the right step to take by the loo. men of the A.S.R.S. on the question of amalgamation and federation?" I would prefer loco. men to speak out first for this reason. It is usual when any matter concerning any particular grade of the railway service is discussed in the branch meeting-room for the members of that particular grade to tell the other members what their ideas and aspirations are on the question, and it invariably rest of the members. In like manner I would prefer to see the opinion of loco. men first on this point I am asking this as a courtesy, Mr. Editor, not as a right, because (and sectional advocates may ridicule the statement as much as they like) this question concerns the other grades equally as much as the loco. men, but, nevertheless, will other grades please "bide a wee" whilst some of the loco. men ease their minds a little.
The resolution leaving the decision for further action in abeyance until the two E.C.'s have sufficient evidence from the members to warrant them in deciding the necessity of taking further action was a wise one, but the resolution of the A.S.L.E.&F. on amalgamation, and that one following it asking for our co-operation in another conference, are just about sufficient to make the "further action" far otherwise than one of co-operation, for which they pretend to ask. I am not a fiery individual, but I confess my blood boiled when reading the two resolution of the A.S.L.E.&F. on amalgamation and for another conference. I was going to say that if our E.C. cannot see the necessity for further action, it is time they were put out of action; but, however, they are short of evidence from the members on the matter.
"Amalgamation!" what does it mean? To amalgamate is to unite two or more different bodies into one concern. By way of illustration, the different grades of the railway service are united in one body for the protection of of their labour, and it is called the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.
"Federation!" what is it? A federation is a union of several internally independent bodies, or a state of being which will not permit the carrying out of the principle of combination to its logical conclusion. It is a sort of half-way house to Trade Unionism.
Now, you fellow footplatemen, has Trade Unionism, and particularly railway Trade Unionism, got too much combination or too little? Is a paper federation agreement to be preferred to an amalgamation in letter, spirit, and practice? Have we been going ahead too quick all these years that we must needs turn back and be satisfied with a federation of independent sections, instead of a compact whole? I think not. The principles of Trade Unionism give an empathic negative to such questions. Organisation and combination, and the best and closest of them at that, are absolutely indispensable, and more so at the present time than at any other period in the history of Labour, because our masters, the employers, were never more united than they are today, and, therefore, any movement or course of action which tends to separate any body of workers into different grades must be opposed by Labour with vigour and persistency, and any diplomacy or policy which seeks to smooth over things by ignoring the real issue for the sake of a little temporary advantage must not be tolerated.
The time has come for some plain speaking by the loco. men of the A.S.R.S. Because of the federation agreement a good many of us, from a false sense of chivalry, have been "mum" on the question of amalgamation, and allowed the undermining doctrine of sectionalism, in the guise of federation, to gain ground, whilst we were silent, and I am determined that such a state of things shall no longer be quietly allowed in the A.S.R.S.
The present position is untenable, because amalgamation is diametrically opposed to federation. We cannot have both, we must choose one or the other.
Our society is called the Amalgamation Society of Railway Servants of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. It is sometimes asked, "What's in a name?" Well, in this case there is sufficient in our tittle to settle for all our attitude on this question. "The Amalgamation Society" - there is! Long may it wave! The strongest and only possible type of Trade Union for railway employees. My convictions on the point were settled when I joined the society, and have been clinched every meeting night since. Of course, any kind of combination is better than none at all, but our sectional fraternity must not expect us to turn back and allow the principles of progress in Labour matters to degenerate; and, holding these convictions, they give me an attitude to the other grades of the railway service which advocates of sectionalism seems utterly unable to grasp. It is this. The A.S.R.S. has been termed a guards' society by chief officials of the A.S.L.E.&F.; yet, in the teeth of that taunt, I a locomotive man, prefer the support and will stand by any other member of the A.S.R.S., be he guard, plate layer, porter, or whatever he may be and I will not abate one jot of the principle of amalgamation in return for all the principles of federation and the whole bag and baggage of the A.S.L.E.&F.
We have had two years' experience of a federation agreement with a sectional society, and it was entered upon mainly with a view of creating a better feeling between the two societies. What has been the result? The course of events always brings the two societies to the point where they differ in principle. Theory said let us federate and work harmoniously together, Practice sternly tells us it is an absolute condition of harmony that one of the two must drop its main principle before we can attain such a consummation, because no man can constituently reconcile himself to both -- in fact, by lending our support to the federation agreement we have been giving our moral and financial aid to a movement for the disintegration of the A.S.R.S.
This must cease, and A.S.R.S. loco. men, who have given much thought to the question, should give us their views and convictions on it, and when the subject has been aired enough by the members, consider the advisor otherwise of passing a resolution something like this at the branch meetings: "That this branch is of opinion that any working agreement with any railway Trade Union which insists on the propagation of sectionalism as one of its principles cannot consistently be supported by us, as it is directly opposed to the main principle of our society, namely, amalgamation." If there is a pronounced opinion on the matter throughout the society, a resolution on similar lines could be submitted at the next A.G.M., and Lydney's recommendation, that "the rank and file takes the matter up themselves," would be realised. There is no expense attached to the suggested course of action, and surely we have energy enough yet left in us to confirm the principle under which upwards of 30 years of successful work has been accomplished for railway servants and Trade Unionism, and also lay it down as a dictum of the A.S.R.S. to all other railway Trade Unions that so long as any of them foster sectionalism it must, as far as the A.S.R.S. is concerned, be the parting of the ways.
YOUNG ENGINEMAN
THE RAILWAY REVIEW
16TH FEBRAURY 1906
AMALGAMATION OR FEDERATION
Dear Sir, In response to "Young Engineman's" request I will, with your permission, add a little to the discussion on this subject.
As your correspondence says, and discussion, it desired to be useful, must be carried on free from the personal. It must be borne in mind that it is first and last a question of principle. To proceed then, we have seen that Federation has been a delusion; that it has been an utter failure. The reason for that is, not simply because so and so has done something he ought not to have done, or that somebody has left undone something he caught to have done, but because the principle of the Associated Society and the principle of our society are absolutely at variance; and this being so a state of rivalry exists which could not possibly be avoided under the circumstances. As G.K. Chesterton said some time since in our paper, combination is a good thing sometimes; it all depends on what was combined. The different parts of the combination must be in harmony, or else the closer contract will only produce jarring and friction. For instance to connect two men by tying the leg of one to the leg of the other is combine the two men, but if the men wished to a catch a train they would find that the combination would impede instead of accelerate their progress. This is just the position with respect to the federation agreement. It has been proved to be impracticable. And the house is divided against itself. The only remedy, without a doubt, for our present various state is that loco. men shall be in one society, and I propose, or rather I support "Young Engineman" in his proposition that the matter should be fully, reasonably, and calmly discussed, as to the ways and means of adopting the remedy. That of course, means which society, which principle, shall be accepted by all for the sake of the cause. We, of course, take it for granted that the success of any particular society is not to be compared with the success of the whole movement. Let us, then, look at the circumstances as they stand. The members of the Associated Society believe in sectionalism, that is to say, they believe that if each section of the railwaymen, as for instance loco. men, have a society of their own, which will not be in opposition to the society of any other grade, organisation amongst the men of that society will be improved, and consequently, the possibilities of gaining better conditions greatly enhanced. The men of the Amalgamated Society, on the other hand, believe.
1 That no section of the railwaymen, or in fact of any class of workmen, can materially rise above their fellows.
2 That the greatest obstacle to the advancement of railwaymen by organisation, is the jealousy and ill feeling which exists between the men of the different grades; a state of things which is created and nurtured by the conditions of the work, and
3. That while this continues, sympathy one which another will be at a discount, and that the only way to bring a better understanding is by approaching one another and fraternising together away from the influences which operate at work. The question ten is, shall the Amalgamated men go into the Associated Society, or vice versa ?
Let us look at what it would entail on the part of members of either society. If the Associated men were to come over to us it would mean, that although they would be renouncing their principle, yet we should be in one society, we would be unified, and our society being as democratic as it I possible for it to be, the loco. members could shape their aims as they pleased. It is ridiculous to think that any opposition would be shown by the society as a whole to our efforts towards obtaining concessions, and moreover there would be some prospect of having the practical sympathy of the organised men in the other grades. Even a member of the Associated will, I think, admit that the practical sympathy of the other grades would, if not absolutely necessary, be a strong factor in achieving success. Yet the Associated believe in keeping aloof, and think that at the crucial moment the men who they have been systematically keeping at arm's length will come to their assistance. If, on the other hand, we were to go over to the Associated Society it would mean, that besides having to renounces our belief in amalgamation, we should be adopting the policy of aloofness, deserting the men who had been our Trade Union brothers in the past, a policy which is not calculated to enhance the feeling of friendship between the loco. and the other grades. it is obvious, then that for us to go over to the Associated would entail more sacrifice on our part than would be entailed on Associated men if thy came over to us. The idea that gives birth to the principle of sectionalism is that loco. men have something to conserve apart from the other grades. That, because drivers have the top wage, all the lower paid men are jealous of them and would like to see the disparity in the wages lessened, even if it was accomplished by reducing the top wages. This is a fallacy. The truth is that the lower paid men naturally look with envy on the man who is getting something more approximating to a living wage, and they think that they are entitled to a living wage also. That, however, does not imply that enmity exists, not need it. We must not forget, too, that if the wages of the lower paid men were raised through the efforts of the men, it would strengthen the claim of the loco. men for some concessions also, if their efforts were equally as strong. What I wish to point out is that friendship with the other grades costs the loco. men nothing and helps to perfect the organisation of the whole. another idea which plays a part in creating the belief in the principle of sectionalism is that from the very nature of our work the men of the other grades constantly appear to us in the guise of watchdogs, as it were, for the companies. But surely one can see that they are not to be blamed for this. It is merely the cunning of our masters displaying itself. Let us then recognise that they are men as we are, with the same aspirations, and suffering the same wrongs from the same enemy. Do not let us allow the shadows of minor differences to eclipse the great and manly principle of thorough Trade Unionism,
Yours,
HUGH S. LINDSAY
THE RAILWAY REVIEW
9TH MARCH 1906
AMALGAMATION OR FEDERATION
We have before us several letters complaining strongly of the action of the Associated Society under the federation scheme, especially in regard to the Burnley district. It would appear that the causes of complaint are two, but in view of the fact that the matter will probably be the subject of negotiation elsewhere, we do not intend to enlarge upon these complaints. They are, first, that at an open meeting of the Associated Society members go the A.S.R.S. were not allowed to be present -- were, in fact, asked to retire; and second, that in order to induce members of the A.S.R.S. to join their society they are offering to take them into full benefit, providing 15 will come over at one time. As we have already said, these matters will no doubt be inquired into in the proper place and at the proper time. There are also other statements which are being used as inducements which show that a regard for the truth is not a conspicuous virtue in some quarters. Other letters we have receives make attacks to which we can be no party, as we desire, in the interests of enginemen, a peaceful solution to this difficulty. The old results can only follow from this disunity. While the men quarrel, they suffer.