Trade Unions, or TRADES UNIONS. It is now almost universally admitted that trade unions are the lineal descendants of, and the legitimate successors to, the old English guilds, more especially in their latest development, that of craft Guilds (q.v.). History is almost silent as regards the guild system from the time of the suppression of the guilds, in the reign of Henry VIII., until the later attempts of the handicraftsmen in the 18th century to establish trade customs having the force of law, and to enforce the provisions of the Statute of Apprentices, which in a sense was a kind of codification of the then existing guild law, as formulated in the Ordinances of the Guilds, and held to be binding in nearly all trades. Those ordinances were kept alive in various ways, sometimes by charters granted in the reign of the Stuarts, as in London, at Exeter, Norwich, and other towns, where manufactures were carried on, and at Berwick-on-Tweed and other places where, with or without a charter, the old system was recognised and applied to existing industries. Trade unions arose out of the contests, legal and otherwise, to enforce the trade customs established by the guilds, and the provisions of the Statute of Apprentices, 5 Eliz. 4, and of other statutes subsequently passed and in force. In the newer industrial developments of the 17th century, and their fuller expansion in the 18th, some of those provisions were regarded by employers as being in restraint of trade, and they tried to evade them, or to ignore them. The workmen endeavoured to maintain and enforce them; hence arose 'combinations,' mostly of a temporary character in the first instance, to protect the interests of the workmen, and exact obedience to the law. By degrees those combinations became more and more permanent, until, towards the end of the 18th century, the trade union was instituted in a more or less crude form, but similar in most respects to those now in existence. Among the earliest complete types of a trade union is perhaps the 'Institution,' established by the cloth-workers of Halifax in the year 1796; but others had existed at a much earlier date.
The earlier history of trade unions is one long record of repression. Amongst other things inherited from their predecessors the guilds was the suspicion that they were opposed to public policy; they were regarded as combinations in restraint of trade, as the supporters of industrial monopoly, and as dangerous associations which ought to be suppressed. The Combination Laws were passed to prohibit them, and other laws were resorted to for the purpose of destroying their power. Perhaps the very persecution to which they were subjected helped to give them permanency as an institution in the land. This policy was reversed in 1824, and by the amending Act of 1825, by the repeal of the Combination Laws. But the then legal recognition did not afford to them legal protection. It was not until 1869 that they obtained protection for their funds and property by a temporary act, and only permanently in 1871 by the Trade Union Act. Since that date other acts have placed them upon a footing of equality with other voluntary associations in the country.
In the first twenty years of the 19th century many trade societies were formed, some few of which have survived to this day. The earliest survivors date from about the year 1809, but they have undergone changes in constitution, if not much in their aims. So active were those unions in the years 1818, 1819, and 1820 that inquiries were instituted into their constitution and operations, which inquiries paved the way for the ultimate repeal of the Combination Laws, the prosecutions which had taken place helping rather than retarding the movement for repeal. The unions were extremely active from 1824 to 1838, when a further inquiry was instituted. They were most active in 1833 and 1834, and again in 1847 and 1848. In the year 1850 a new departure commenced by the formation of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, one of the most perfect types of a trade union in the world.
In their essential character trade unions are voluntary associations of workmen for mutual protection and assistance in securing generally the most favourable conditions of labour for their members. Voluntary they must of necessity be, for the freedom to combine implies also the freedom not to combine. Within certain lines the law limits and defines what may and what may not be done, in furtherance of the objects of a trade union. Briefly stated, the position is this: Neither employer nor workman has the right to compel another person to do, or abstain from doing, that which he deems best for his own advantage. Formerly a trade unionist was liable to prosecution and punishment for doing certain things that another person, not in a trade union, might do. Now the law is fairly equal as between man and man, irrespective of his belonging or not belonging to a trade union.
The main object of a trade union is the securing of the most favourable conditions of labour in the particular trade it represents. This fundamental object includes all efforts to raise wages, and to maintain wages at the highest possible level in the trade; the reduction of the hours of labour, and resistance to any increase in those hours; and also the regulation of apprentices, overtime, piecework, methods of employment or discharge, and modes of working generally. All those objects are now lawful, provided that the means adopted to enforce them are legal; formerly they were all regarded as unlawful, being in restraint of trade, a doctrine rendered obsolete by the Acts of 1875.
The constitution of a trade union is essentially democratic. The members are bound by a code of rules presented to each of them on being admitted as members. Those rules are revised from time to time by the votes of the members, either by a plebiscite or through delegates, popularly elected, by the votes of members, by ballot or in open lodge. The old notion of bylaws other than the rules is now exploded. A large proportion of the unions are now registered, a process which would render bylaws illegal were they of the character formerly supposed. The bylaws are merely lodge regulations for the conduct of business, of no public concern whatever.
Opinions differ widely as to some of the trade objects of trade unions, especially as to apprentices, overtime, piecework, and the like. The apprenticeship system is abandoned in many trades, in so far as admission to the union is concerned. In some unions, however, the system prevails, the ostensible object being to secure good handicraftsmen; but there can be little doubt that it is intended, as was intended by the Ordinances of the Guilds and by the act of Elizabeth, to limit the number of workers at the particular trade. As to overtime, opinions have greatly changed of late, the general feeling being in favour of restriction in that respect. As to piecework, it is as much in favour in some trades as it is repugnant to the workers in others; the adoption of it is regulated mainly by the nature of the employment. In some industries it is the universal practice, in others it is only partially resorted to, in others it is deemed to be inapplicable. The union regulates time-wages in the one case and piece-rates in the other, either by a scale, a log, or a price-list. With respect to the hours of labour the uniform action of the unions is in favour of shorter hours, according to the trade. Only since 1887 has any demand sprung up for an equal day of eight hours for all workers, a demand not seriously entertained by the majority.
These and other objects are termed the trade purposes of the union. In practice they vary in their application to the particular trade. In some the question of apprentices never crops up; it is inapplicable at the present time, whatever it might have been formerly. Overtime mainly pertains to day-workers, though long hours apply equally to piece-workers; but shorter hours, when obtained, apply alike to all, though the modes of apportionment may differ. The work of a trade union which has to regulate a price-list, or maintain a scale, is often of a most laborious and minute character, as in the tailoring trade, in the boot and shoe trades, and more especially in the textile trades, the latter requiring experts of a high character to be able to work out the 'statements.' In all cases the object is to maintain the standard of wages at the highest level possible, making such advances as the conditions of trade will permit, and resisting reductions where the members and their officials deem it expedient to do so.
Generally speaking, the means by which trade unions seek to attain their objects is strikes. Formerly this was the only means; but the growth of the unions, their recognition by law, and the diminution of the prejudices which existed against them, have enabled the officials and the executives of the associations to approach employers by boards of conciliation and arbitration, thereby averting strikes. Moreover a system of self-adjusting sliding scales has been devised, especially in the iron and steel and coal trades, by means of which the rates of wages vary with the price of the material, rising or falling as prices advance or recede. In such cases there is a minimum wage fixed as a basis, the percentage being arranged according to certain customs in the trade. In the event of a strike it is usual to recognise trade customs, such as giving notices where notices are required; the union that sanctioned a strike without giving such notices would gain little sympathy and no support from other unions if appealed to for help—unless indeed there were very strong and urgent reasons for not doing so. In cases of arbitration it is extremely rare for any union to contest the award of the arbitrator, although there have been instances of the kind. They are, however, so few in number, compared with loyal acceptance, even when the award is against the men, that it is unfair to allege that the unions do not loyally abide by the decision of an umpire as a general rule. It was at one time usually urged that the cost of a contest was greater than the advantages that could possibly accrue, even if successful. This position is untenable; and were it true, as alleged, men would soon cease to strike. Strikes are indeed most costly, and they usually involve a large amount of suffering and privation, but on the whole the balance of profit is with the aggregate men of the trade, even if it be sometimes at the cost of the strikers. The reasons are obvious. The battle is fought by a few, the many share the advantages, whatever they may be. Strikes are deplorable, and there is a growing disposition to avoid them as much as possible, though passion gets the better of reason sometimes, and disputes occur where they might have been averted.
The growth of trade unionism is a feature of the times in which we live. Only a very few years ago trade unions were tabooed by all sorts and conditions of men, other than the men in such trades who had experienced the advantages of such unions. A large proportion even of those fought shy of them. Now they are quite fashionable; they are commended in the senate, in the pulpit, from the platform, and in the press, until the workers begin to feel a sense of shame in not belonging to one. Even clerks and civil servants, who used to deride them, have some kind of association for mutual protection. They are spreading and extending in all directions. They have been recommended by a committee of the House of Lords as the best mode of dealing with 'Sweating' (q.v.). It is certainly no longer a reproach to belong to a trade union, for their trusted officers are members of parliament, have had, and have, seats on royal commissions, have been accredited as British representatives at an imperial congress, have been entertained by the heir-apparent to the crown, and fill posts of honour in many of the local institutions of the land.
It is not quite so easy to accurately describe the actual increase of membership, because no absolutely reliable record exists of their real numerical strength throughout the country at given dates. The Registrar's returns will not furnish the figures for the simple reason that all the unions are not registered, and some that are do not always send in returns. Nevertheless the gradual growth since 1871 is indicated by the increase in membership of the registered societies that regularly make returns as to the number of members, income and expenditure, and the amount of funds. At the close of 1872, the first full year of registration, the total number of registered trade unions was 73, with 217,128 members; in 1891 there were 490 registered societies, with a total of 645,451 in the 235 societies sending in returns. In Scotland only 1 society failed to make returns, in Ireland 13, and in England and Wales 241 failed to comply. It is estimated that there are about 2000 trade societies in the United Kingdom, with a total membership of nearly 2,250,000, and having an aggregate balance in hand of about 2 millions sterling, the annual income being nearly equal to that amount. The weekly contributions of members vary according to the objects included in the society's rules. In trade unions established for trade purposes only the contributions range from 2d. or 3d. per week to 6d. per week, with from 3d. to 6d. per quarter for local objects or branch expenses. In the unions having provident benefits as well as trade purposes, the contributions range from 6d. to 1s. per week, the small quarterly payments being a trifle higher in most instances. These regular payments are exclusive of levies, special and general, sometimes amounting to a total sum equalling a year's contribution. But this is exceptional. The total payments by the members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and some other unions similarly constituted and with like benefits, amount to quite £3 per annum, often more. The average amount per member in the total of the registered societies making returns amounted in one year to £2, 2s. 9d., and that year was not the worst for trade; but the average of the aggregate societies would not, as a rule, greatly exceed £1 per member. The average over ten years for all the registered societies making returns was £1, 3s. 5d. per member.
The principal difference between one trade union and another is to be found in the benefits provided for the members under the rules. There is no essential difference in constitution and aims. All have for their primary object 'trade protection,' and consequently provide strike-pay. A few, and more particularly some of the new unions, make no further provision. But the vast majority of those established for trade purposes only provide 'funeral allowance,' a provision directly inherited from the old guild system. The most perfect types of the modern trade union are those which provide what are called 'provident benefits,' such as weekly payments to members out of work, during sickness, and superannuation in old age; accident benefit, in cases of partial or total disablement; funeral allowance, in case of death of member or his wife, and, in some cases, insurance against loss of tools, and benevolent grants in times of acute distress; all of which benefits are in addition to, not in lieu of, strike-pay. The amounts payable under these several heads vary considerably—from 8s. to 12s. per week to members out of work; from 9s. to 15s. per week in sickness; from 5s. to 10s. per week superannuation; from £6 to £15 in case of death; from £50 to £100 in cases of accident; from £5 to £10 loss of tools by fire, &c.; and from 10s. to 25s. per week in cases of strikes. The latter amounts are often increased by special levies, or by the voluntary contributions of other societies, or by public subscriptions.
The advantages conferred upon the members of societies making such provident provisions are so enormous that the wonder is that all trade unions have not made similar provision, at least to the extent of ability of the members to contribute such sums as will assure the benefits. It is the provident side of trade unions that has reconciled the public to their legal recognition, and has enabled the legislature to legalise and protect them. The extent of those benefits, and their far-reaching effects, are evidenced by the fact that in forty years thirteen societies have paid in provident benefits alone to their members £7,460,071, while the total strike-pay by the same societies during the same period amounted only to £481,816. Yet those societies are pre-eminently the unions that have secured and maintained for their members the highest rates of wages, the shortest hours of labour, and the best conditions of employment enjoyed by any industrial workers in the country. The total income in 1890 exceeded £550,000 for the thirteen societies, and their expenditure exceeded £500,000; nevertheless the total balance in hand exceeded £750,000. The staying power of such unions is immense, for the whole aggregate funds may be used in a labour struggle in case of need. There is, however, very slight prospect of such vast expenditure being required, as the moral and material force of such large accumulations exercises a potent influence in preventing and averting strikes.
The economical effect of those benefits and of the accumulated funds for their sustenance is great beyond all question. Hunger competition is averted because the members are supported when out of work, during sickness, and in old age. Starvation wages are not possible in such cases; the only question is what standard of living shall the members aspire to and endeavour to attain. Prudence is inculcated in this connection, for the members will hesitate to run inordinate risks, however tempted to do so. Strikes are fewer in those societies than formerly, albeit they are stern and stubborn when they occur. The history of such unions is one of continuous progress, in numbers, in resources, and in influence. Other societies have maintained their ground in numerous instances, but not progressively in the same ratio. Many have collapsed, revived again, and once more collapsed; but in no case have the provident unions failed to keep their engagements with their members, although in a few they have undergone an immense strain in times of trade depression.
As before stated, there is really no essential difference between the old and the new trade unionism. The new unions are formed mainly on the old lines, and many are verging more and more towards the best modern type. The newer unions were in the first instance constituted as societies for trade purposes only, thus going back to the earlier and simpler forms of industrial organisation. Their leaders rather ostentatiously declared that they were 'fighting machines,' and sneered at the 'huge benefit clubs,' as they termed the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and similar associations. Already some of these new unions have introduced funeral benefits, a few superannuation allowance, others accident benefit, but none of them either out-of-work or sick benefits. In their modes of action the newer unions have been more aggressive, less tolerant of opposition, more inclined to use force or compulsion as regards non-unionists, and they are also rather more reckless in the initiation of strikes. This was inevitable, for a strike is the raison d'être of a union that is merely a fighting machine. In times of industrial excitement and disputes men will readily subscribe and vote money from a sentiment of esprit de corps, being impelled by the action of others, by the enthusiasm engendered, and the pressure brought to bear. These incitements over, the influences removed, the battle lost or won as the case may be, the fervour is gone, apathy sets in, and the contributions fall away. There are not the same impelling forces at work as in the provident unions—where the motive and incentive to continuous contributions are operating without cessation, because of the permanent benefits in store for each individual member. The new unionists also rely more upon possible legislation for labour than the older unionists.
Trade unions are no longer under the ban of the law. Their action is approved by living political economists. Their influence is felt, and their intervention is recognised by all classes of society, by the state, by employers, and by the general public. Differences of opinion exist as to the methods and the means, and also the objects in some instances. If well organised, wisely directed, and powerful by reason of membership and resources, they command attention, and are able to equalise the conditions of labour in the manner suggested by Adam Smith. They protect their members by placing them in a position to exact mutuality in all labour contracts. The present conditions of labour in Britain furnish incontestable proofs of their useful work, whatever may be said of their action in particular instances. But the full measure of their worth, as industrial organisations, is only to be seen in the operation of their provident benefits. They keep their own poor, succour and support their own sick, provide for the aged and infirm, bury their own dead, and render important assistance in cases of accident, adversity, loss of tools, and other ills that especially fall to the lot of the poor. They do this without the taint of pauperism, thus preserving the self-respect of the members and of their families. They also afford assistance, often of a generous character, to other similar bodies of men or associations in cases of need. Their influence is also very largely educational, they inculcate thrift, they promote sobriety, they discourage profanity and bad language, and they teach and enforce discipline, order, and obedience to law. Their growth recently has been phenomenal: the engineers have 86,500 members; the Northern Counties Association of Weavers, 81,000; the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, 250,000; and many other unions from 20,000 to 65,000, with incomes proportionate to their numbers.
The Trades Union Congress was established in 1868, and meets annually in different towns. In the first year 118,367 members of trade unions were represented; in 1888, 674,634; and in 1900, 386 delegates represented 140 organisations, with 1,225,133 members. Since 1894 the delegates, which till that time included also representatives of trades councils, have only represented fully-paid-up members of trade unions. They discuss all questions relating to labour, and have a standing parliamentary committee to look after matters which may affect their interests in parliament. In January 1899 a special congress met to discuss, and finally approved of, proposals for the formation of a General Federation of Trade Unions, the objects being to uphold the right of combination of labour, to improve the status of workers, to secure unity of action among all societies forming the federation, to promote industrial peace and take all amicable means to prevent strikes, and to establish a fund for mutual assistance and to carry out the foregoing objects. The Miners' Federation has also an annual congress; the delegates at the 1900 meeting represented 150,000 men from all parts of Great Britain except Northumberland and Durham.
Comparatively little progress has been made in the institution of trade unions on the continent of Europe, but some progress is now being made. Up to a recent date the associations were political rather than industrial; in England it is the reverse. The effect of the international labour congresses has been to familiarise the workmen of Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, and even Spain with the essential principles of industrial organisation, and some excellent types of the modern trade union have been established. What is now required is that there shall be freedom to combine in all countries as in England.
In the United States there are labour organisations, such as the Knights of Labour (q.v.), &c., but the secret system, at one time their prominent feature, has been discarded. The best unions in the States are the branches of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, the Carpenters and Joiners, and a few others. The government takes cognisance of the movement through the Department of Labour.
In the British colonies the best unions are in the Australian colonies, in some of which excellent unions exist. Here the engineers and the joiners have been the chief pioneers. But the Australians are far ahead of all other colonies, and even of the United States, in industrial organisation, the unions being modelled after those in England, usually those of the best type.
See the articles GUILDS and works there cited, FACTORY ACTS, FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, and LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS; Comte de Paris, The Trades Unions of England (trans. 1869); Thurlow, Trades Unions Abroad (1871); Lord Brassey, Work and Wages, and other works on the labour question (1872-80); Stanley Jevons, The State in Relation to Labour (1882); Thorold Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages (1884); Brentam, The Relation of Labour to the Law of To-day (New York, 1891); Handy Book of the Labour Question (1876); Conflicts of Capital and Labour (1878; 2d ed. 1890); Trade Unionism New and Old (1891), by the present writer; The History of Trade Unionism, by Sidney and Beatrice Webb (1894); publications of the Labour Bureau established in 1866; Reports of Committees on combination of workmen, sweating, and of the Royal Commission (1867-69), and of the Labour Commission (1891-92).