Editorial: Pledges and Pie Crust
If there is one feature of the present war conditions that stands out more prominently than the others it is the cynical—even contemptuous—manner in which the master class has treated the “honour” and “sanctity” of its pledges. “Scraps of Paper” are something solid and substantial compared with the promises and pledges of the British section of the master class. Numerous instances have been given in previous issues of our journal, and we shall, doubtless, have to deal with many more before the carnage is ended. For the moment we take a case, whose full fruition is yet to come but for which the masters are preparing now.
Early in 1915, when the question of enlarging old factories and building new ones for the increased production of munitions of war was being considered, the Government and the employers stated that production was being delayed and hampered by the various rules and agreements that had been established, after years of struggle, by the several trade unions in the engineering and kindred industries. To obtain the removal of these rules and agreements the Government in conjunction with the Engineering Employers’ Federation, approached the trade unions, “the only bodies with whom negotiations could be carried on,” and urged the removal of the whole of these “restrictions” “in the national interest” and for “the period of the war only.”
How far the agents of the master class were successful is shown in a series of significant articles appearing in the “Times” during Jan., 1917, entitled “The Trade Union Outlook.” The series are written entirely from the up-to-date employers standpoint, though to gild the pill there is an appearance of frankness employed when referring to the workers’ position.
In the first article, appearing on the 15th January, we are told that the trade unionists were asked:
“At one blow to give up not this or that trade union or custom, but the whole network wherever any employer thought that it “was in any way interfering with the utmost possible production.”
We may easily imagine how many employers “thought” in this direction for—note—the employer was not required to prove his case, it was sufficient if he “thought” the rules would limit production. As if to emphasize this point we have the following statement occurring immediately after the one quoted above :
“What the Engineering Employers’ Federation were specially concerned about, as frankly explained in their proposal of November, 1914, was to get complete freedom for each employer to “dilute” labour by setting one or two skilled mechanics to help and direct a score of less skilled workers ; to break up the jobs so as to bring them within the capacity of semi-skilled workers ; to introduce automatic machinery and engage non-unionists and unapprenticed men, labourers and women ; to work if need be an unlimited number of hours seven days a week, without regard for Factory Acts or holidays ; to substitute for the standard time rates whatever piecework or bonus system they found convenient; and, above all, to speed up the machinery and abrogate all customary limitations on individual output so as to get the very maximum of production.”
Seems fairly complete. It is not easy to suggest offhand any other “improvement” from the masters’ standpoint. And how did the workers’ officials deal with these gentle suggestions ? Let the “Times” (ibid) reply:
“Upon the strong appeal made by the Government the trade unions, without a single exception, agreed to do what the national interest required.”
Mark the open avowal, without any qualification, that the “national interest” is the interest of the Employers’ Federation. Let the workers remember this. No wonder Mr. Montague could say later on, when he was Minister of Munitions, that:
“I doubt if any community has been asked for greater sacrifices” (same article) while the writer of the article says :
“It is only just that the magnitude of the sacrifice made by organised labour should be remembered. But its very magnitude now increases the national difficulty.”
Just so—IF—it was intended to make good such sacrifice, but, as we shall see, no such thing is intended.
In the second article appearing on 16th January, we are told :
“The most explicit pledges were given, not once, but repeatedly ; not to any particular trade union, but to the labour movement as a whole ; not by one Minister only but by many, representing all sections of the Coalition Government; and not by the Government alone but also by the Engineering Employers’ Federation, and by innumerable employers individually—that the rules and practices thus laid aside should be restored at the conclusion of the war.”
And further on it is stated :
“Any departure during the war,” said the Treasury Agreement of March igth, 1915, “from the practices ruling in our workshops, shipyards, and other industries prior to the war, shall only be for the period of the war.”
Finally, to clinch the matter, the pledge was embodied in the Munitions of War Act, 1915, it being made a criminal offence for any employer to fail to carry out the restoration of the trade-union rules, at the end of the war. And as the Arsenals and Dockyards are outside the provisions of the Munitions Act, Mr. Lloyd George said (House of Commons, 23rd June, 1915) that the agreement was made
“On the honour and pledge of the nation that things would be restored exactly to the position they were in before the suspension of all these restrictions and practices that interfere with the increase of the output of war materials.”
To any ordinary person all this seems not only clear and explicit but as rigid as any verbal or written pledge or contract could be made. But—and the sequel is a big “But”—it seems that these various pledges and promises, and even an Act of Parliament, must go the way of all the previous pledges and be thrown on one side and ignored as soon as they have served their purpose. For we are now informed, in the same article (16.1.1917) :
“Employers, at any rate, are abundantly convinced of the economic advantages of the new industrial revolution that has been effected. Not from engineering alone, but from industry after industry comes the report that productivity and profits have alike so much increased that any reversion to the old state of things would be disastrous ; and that the continuance of the new organisation and practice of their factories is indispensable if this country is to be able to face the impending fierce competition for the world’s trade.”
The italics are ours. We are further told that :
“Some employers, doubtless forgetting the obligations by which they have individually bound themselves in their Government contracts, make no secret of their intention to allow in their establishments no such reversion to methods of working, processes of manufacture, and systems of remuneration which they denounce as obsolete and uneconomic.”
While in the third article (17.1.1917) it is said:
“We are face to face with the unpleasant fact that the nation has given a solemn pledge to labour which it cannot possibly fulfil.”
And further on it is stated :
“We may as well admit to ourselves … no Government could insist on carrying out the pledge ; and that in spite of its plighted troth, no Government will try.”
Here then is the proposal, naked and unashamed, that in order to maintain the hugely increased profits made under war conditions by the employers, it is advisable—nay necessary—to throw overboard the whole cargo of pledges and promises made in 1915. In the “national interest” of maintaining the profits of the Employers’ Federation, the present methods of over-driving of all employees, along with the relatively small wages paid to the so-called semi-skilled workers, particularly to the women, are to be continued as the normal conditions of employment after the war.
When in any branch of industry men have threatened to come out on strike, the slimy agents of the master class, from the “Daily Mail” to John Hodge and Ben Tillett, have howled in chorus against these men “assisting the enemy” by taking advantage of the abnormal circumstances.
But when the whole of the employers take advantage of these circumstances, under the cover of a pledge of restoration “after the war” (they did not say how long after) to increase enormously the robbery of men, women and children, then they are praised for their patriotism. And the workers, in their ignorance, swallowed it all. What have they to say now when it is brazenly stated that these conditions are to be permanent despite the pledges ?
What does the master class offer in return for this increased slavery ? This question will be answered in our next article dealing with the proposals put forward in the “Times.”