material used and (d) union of general labour. Of these types the first two are the most important. Craft unions were the first form of labour combination, being built up on a vocational basis, primarily, but not necessarily, for skilled workers. Employees engaged on a particular task or using a particular set of tools established unions, very often irrespective of the industry wherein they were engaged. Pattern-makers or clerks, for example, may be found in shipbuilding, railway works, general engineering, constructional works, etc., and their unions cut "horizontally," as it were, across the whole of industry. Unions by industry,* on the other hand, would include every class of labour, skilled and unskilled, clerical and manual, engaged in the production of an important commodity or service. In contrast to the unions by craft, the unions by industry are "vertical" in structure. Whereas the craft organisation would have the managers, the clerks and the different classes of artisans in the production of (say) clothing in separate unions according to the specialised occupation, the other plan would bring them all into a single union for the whole of the clothing industry. Unions based on the material employed bear a certain resemblance to the unions by craft. The Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, for instance, combines cabinet makers, carpenters, machinists, etc., and cuts across several industries. This form of organisation meets with as much disapproval from the advocates of union by industry as does the union by craft, and for practical purposes it is * Strictly speaking, union by industry should be distinguished from industrial unionism, which aims at a single organisation of workers in all trades and is more revolutionary in character. (Cf. trades unionism, supra., p. 150). not necessary to deal with material" trade unionism separately.* Unions of general labour combine the semi-skilled and unskilled workers of many different industries, and also provide an organisation for workers of all degrees of skill in the small trades not covered by separate unions. The membership of these unions, which in 1924 was about 650,000, is naturally of a very mixed character, but, in the absence of particular associations for the several kinds of labour, a general union is better than none at all. It is to be expected that, as new unions are formed in the trades not at present separately organised, the general unions will lose a corresponding proportion of their members. On the other hand, certain supporters who are imbued with the "Big Union" idea anticipate that the general unions will increase their membership at the expense of the other unions. While in principle it may be preferable to have a single body representative of all the workers, instead of a large number of separate unions, it is doubtful whether the general labour unions, consisting for the most part of semi-skilled and unskilled workers, would provide the proper organisation. Controversy ranges most between the claims of union by craft and union by industry. The craft unionist maintains that his form of organisation is more natural than one which attempts to combine all classes of workers of widely different nature and outlook. The bond of mutual interest is stronger when the members are engaged on similar work than when they perform Union by * The German Union of Metal Workers—the largest union in Germany-is of this character, but, as it organises the unskilled as well as the skilled, it has a greater resemblance to a union by industry. See Cole, Organised Labour, p. 29. various tasks which, though they may be comprised with a single industry, differ widely in character. The craft unionist contends that his association is firmer and more uniform, and that the members can derive greater advantage than they would by joining the larger but heterogeneous union. He fears that if all the workers in an industry joined a comprehensive union, the more skilled workers would be overwhelmed in voting power by the less skilled workers, and that questions primarily affecting one special class of the members might receive inadequate attention. This affords one reason why the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and the Railway Clerk's Association have so far refused to join the National Union of Railwaymen. There is, further, the financial difficulty. Craft unions have, on the average, higher contributions and better benefits than those unions which cater for all classes of workers. A craft unionist who has been paying contributions for many years and is nearly qualified for superannuation benefit is naturally opposed to the merging of his union with the larger body, if the pooling of the funds and the re-arrangement of the scheme of benefits work out to his detriment. The advocate of union by industry, while not disputing these difficulties, claims that they are not insuperable. The financial question is merely one for mutual arrangement and adjustment, and has been satisfactorily overcome in many instances. The fear that the interests of a section of the workers would be overshadowed by those of the majority is said to be exaggerated, if it is not actually selfish. But in any case, it is claimed, the advantages to all classes resulting from common action would more than compensate for any slight loss in particular directions. The more craft unions there are within an industry the more SOC. ECON. II frequent are demarcation disputes, and, in view of inevitable overlapping, the more uneconomical is the administration as a whole. The economies of large-scale organisation are just as manifest in labour as in capitalist combination. Employers' federations tend to be on an "industrial" and national basis, and the workers find it to their advantage to have an equally broad basis for collective bargaining. Also, in the event of the negotiating machinery breaking down, a strike on the part of a craft union would not, unless it comprised important "key" men, be so effective as a rule as if it were conducted by a union of all the workers in the industry. Union by industry is favoured by the Guild Socialist who regards the trade union as the basis of future industrial organisation. While the workers remain organised on craft lines, they are not being prepared for the ultimate taking-over of industry; a necessary preliminary, it is maintained, is the organisation of the workers on industrial lines. The Guild Socialist differs from the State Socialist in that he desires to vest a large measure of control in the workers of the several industrial groups; for example, the mining industry should be controlled by those working in the mines and at the mine-head (including of course the managers and salaried staff), the railways should be run by the railway workers, and so on. The Guild Socialist differs from the Syndicalist in that he recognises certain rights of the State in industry. While fearing that State Socialism would degenerate into "State Capitalism," he realises that some public control is essential if the community is not to be dominated by the more powerful unions. There are many Socialists, however, who refuse to accept the " unitary sovereignty" in trade unionism advocated by the Guild Socialist. The possibility of reducing the movement to such a simple and uniform basis is also disputed; society is regarded as too complex, industries and vocations too interlaced, to permit of this type of industrial government.* The ardent advocates of union by industry are prone to give too little credit to the useful functions performed by the craft unions. While different bodies of men are engaged in specialised vocations, some degree of "craft " organisation is inevitable. It would be undesirable to suppress, or attempt to suppress, this useful form of association. On the other hand, the emphasis on the value of the craft union should not hinder the proper development of the union by industry. It should not be impossible to devise some trade union structure which covers the whole of an industry, yet concedes an appreciable though necessarily limited measure of autonomy to the craft organisations among its members. The wider adoption of what is termed the "double card" method would probably help in this direction. Members may have to work in industries or services not directly covered by their own union, and events may arise to compel action by the workers in such employment. The "double card" arrangement would facilitate the transfer of workers from union to union, and make for greater unity in the movement as a whole. The Miners' Federation and the Amalgamated Engineering Union came to an agreement of this character in 1921. Where the pride of the smaller unions and their unwillingness to sink their identity in the more comprehensive organisation stand as a barrier to complete amalgamation, the unions are forming federations which, in some cases, are almost as effective as complete amalgamation. Five federations cover the bulk of trade unionists Federation and Amalgamation. * Cf. criticism of insurance by industry, infra., PP. 325-334. |