THE STRIKE OF 1889
The
gas workers’ ‘strike’ of 1889 is a turning point in this whole story of George
Livesey. In a period of six weeks or so he turned from being the hero of gas
manufacture in London and a champion of local people into a major baddie. There have been a number of books – and
endless agitprop events – where he is sometimes portrayed as the top hatted
capitalist, the strike breaker, the enemy of the working class. The ‘strike’ has also been put forward as
part of movement and formation of the ‘new unions’ – as following on from the dock
strike of the summer of 1889 it was assumed that gas stokers were casual and
previously unorganized, like the dock workers.
So – what do we know about it and what appears to have actually
happened.
In June 1889.managers at individual London gas works were approached on
the subject of the eight hour day by Union representatives. Delegates from the
Old Kent Road and Rotherhithe works reported to the Gas Workers Union delegate
meetings. They said that at Rotherhithe they had been received favourably by management
but they were told it was ‘not thought that eight hours would be possible at
the moment - men were scarce’. At Old Kent Road things were more encouraging
- they were reported that they were received favourably and told they must act
in a straightforward manner. Delegates from other companies had sometimes done
less well - at Poplar works they had been 'talked to like a lot of babies in
long clothes'. [2]
On 19th June the South Met. Board minuted that a deputation of men had
attended the old offices to discuss petitions concerning the eight hour day and
on 26th June a notice went up at the various works of the company announcing
possible changes in the shift system and asking men at each works to decide
among themselves which system - eight or twelve hours - would be preferred by a
majority of men there. [3]
The Company said that working practices would be made as universal as
possible throughout the company although this might mean lost privileges at
some works since the company was still rationalising working practice between
the three amalgamated companies. It was also made a condition that regular men
would in future be required to give a month's notice to leave.
Justice reported on this solution at the South Met. with satisfaction
and as 'crowned with success'- and noted that men working the eight hour day
would also receive an unasked for pay rise.[4]
This regularisation of working practice was probably not unwelcome to the
company but the institution of the eight hour day throughout meant a
considerable expenditure on increased wages and additional workers.
Throughout the rest of the summer and early autumn of 1889 the union
continued its programme of local meetings - including some within South Met.'s
area but attention was in the main focused on the concurrent dock strike. In
the works the Union concentrated on recruitment - Livesey later reported to the
Proprietors that 'a determination was shown to persuade, and if that failed to
compel, every man in the Company's service to join the Union’.[5]
Livesey reported that on the 5th September the Union had
written to the Company saying that 'in effect' only Union members would be
allowed to work. Following this letter
some stokers were sacked at Vauxhall and a mass meeting of retort house workers
was held there. Livesey said that strike notices were handed in at most of the
works before a meeting could be arranged. [6]
However Labour Elector reported that "Mr. Livesey stated his
willingness to recognise the Union and apologised for some remarks made in a
speech of his." [7]A
week later they published an agreement signed by both management and Union. It
stated that the Company would not interfere with Union men by consequence of
their membership and that in the same way the Gas Workers Union would not
interfere with non-Union men. This agreement was hailed as a victory.[8]
But a fortnight later they reported that 'in the excitement of the moment …. an
important clause had been omitted from the agreement’. This was the clause was
on which victory should have been based – it gave the Union rights of
recruitment and to refuse to work with non-union labour.[9]
Will Thorne hailed 'the re-instatement of the men at Vauxhall as a
demonstration of the strength of the union.[10]
On 11th September the South Met. Directors minuted that: 'the Union and
its members cannot be recognised and will not be allowed to interfere with the
conduct of the company's business. Also non-union men will be preferred and
protected against intimidation'. They then began to make preparations for a siege
in anticipation of a future strike.
Livesey reported "at every station buildings available for
sleeping accommodation were inspected and arrangements were made to supplement
any deficiency with Humphery’s iron buildings and in addition six steamers were
provisionally chartered and a contract was made with Messrs. McWhirter to
provide bedsteads and bedding - advertisements were printed and the Chairman called
upon the Chief Commissioner of Police.[11]
Labour Elector noted carpenters and joiners fitting up beds and a dining room,
and agents being despatched to different parts of the country to procure men.[12]
The Union continued to hold mass meetings and demonstrations. South
London Press reported a meeting on Peckham Rye with banners from Rotherhithe
and Bankside in support of the dock strike and in order to campaign for an
eight hour day.[13]
Meetings reported in the South Met.'s area were mostly held on Peckham Rye or
in Deptford Broadway - there seems to have been very little in Greenwich. Some
meetings were held in Woolwich but these were to attract workers from the
Government owned works in the Arsenal. In early October the Union began to press for double time on Sundays.
On 4th November
representatives of the London gas company managements met Union officers at the
Cannon Street Hotel.[14]
George Livesey did not attend but South Met. was represented by his brother
Frank – then Manager at Old Kent Road. The meeting proceeded to some measure of
agreement - both sides saw the need for recreation for the workforce and it was
agreed that it was difficult to reduce the workforce on Sundays when demand for
gas was peaking. The Union
representatives agreed to ask members to consider some reduced hours and double
pay in return for a shorter working day and the meeting broke up to re-convene
a week later.
Meanwhile - and the exact
date is a matter of who and what you believe - Livesey introduced his profit
sharing scheme. In later years he gave various dramatic accounts of this. He
had been in Eastbourne, with his wife, and thought to walk the last stretch
back. He crossed Pepys Hill, and thought what a fine public park it would make.[15]
Then he reached the works and was told that the union had given them until 4
p.m. for an answer. 'I had not thought out anything and I cannot explain how or
why this thing came to be but in a quarter of an hour on half a sheet of paper
the scheme was set out in writing and when the Board met it was submitted to
them.[16]
There are other versions
of this episode although they all reach the same conclusion. The initial version of the scheme was that a
bonus would be paid to workers on the same basis as the sliding scale which
linked the price of gas to profits for shareholders. A nest egg – a sum of
money – would be paid to those who signed within three months. Neither the
bonus nor the nest egg could be spent for a negotiated period. But to get this,
workers had to agree to work for twelve months without interruption.[17]
The first mention of the profit
sharing scheme in the Company minutes is 6th November and Will Thorne knew all
about it at the re-called Cannon Street Conference on 11th November. Three
years later Livesey told the Royal Commission of Labour that it was introduced
on 30th October – but although a Board meeting was held that day there is no
mention of it in the Minutes. So, did Livesey introduce his scheme without the
Board's knowledge?
On 18th November South Met
held a meeting with delegates from all the Company's works to explain the
profit sharing scheme. Livesey said told
them 'to speak quite plainly - the Company intends to have some protection out
of it’. He also said 'the public will think that it is better for us to have to
put up with some inconvenience or a short supply of gas for a few days than to
have the price permanently raised’.[18]
Livesey had thus made the
bonus conditional on no strikes. By doing so he had switched the argument away from
one about pay and hours’[19]
to one about individual liberty, control in the workplace and ultimately
control of the industry. It was on these issues that the 1889 strike was
called.
Does this mean that he deliberately provoked the strike?
A week after the scheme
had been announced the Union said that they would 'enforce Rule XVI’ which concerned
union recognition. The company replied that the Union could not be recognised
and non-union men would be preferred and protected.
The press began to report increased protest meetings. At one of these, Will
Thorne said; 'those who signed the agreements were cowards, tyrants and curs'. [20]
On 2nd December the Union asked for the removal of three retort house
workers at Vauxhall who had signed the agreements and on 4th December the Board
received a resolution which the Union had sent on to the daily papers. It read:
“That in the opinion of this meeting men who have signed the bonus scheme
brought out by Mr.Livesey who we look upon as blacklegs to our Society is
condemned by us as unjust, unfair and must be resisted and that all the men in
the South Metropolitan Gas Works are justified in giving in their notices
forthwith until the scheme is abolished and the said men removed from the works
and that a copy be sent to the directors.”
The next day a correction to the resolution was sent out by the union,
it should have read "or the said men," rather than ‘and the said
men’.
By noon on 5th December 2,000 notices had been handed in. To be clear this
was not actually a strike, although it is always described as such. Under the Conspiracy
and Protection of Property Act it was, of course, illegal for gas workers to
strike and so it was necessary for them to give a week’s notice to terminate
their employment and so the employers had a week’s notice of cessation of work.
The employers could thus argue that
there was no need for them to negotiate with the union - men had legitimately
and legally left their jobs, and they had legally and legitimately filled them
with new workers. That the men had all
left at the same time was unfortunate but irrelevant. The men leaving the works
were paid the lump sum due to them on their superannuation payments and it was
on this that many of them were to live during the coming weeks,
The Union believed that the strike had been forced on them and
published their manifesto which explicitly stated that the bonus scheme was
designed to curtail the liberty of their members.
As the South Met. workers left a force of replacement labour was
marched in under heavy police escort and with some drama.[21]
As they arrived the works were picketed. There had been some sabotaged by
departing workers, Four days earlier "unionists' had broken into a store
at Greenwich-and thrown blankets into the Creek. A lobby had been set on fire
at East Greenwich and equipment left which was set to give the maximum amount
of leakage of gas. An effigy of Livesey was burnt outside The Pilot pub, just
outside the East Greenwich gates.
Substitute labour had been recruited over previous weeks. Some of these
men had come from a Cambridge and Sittingbourne and other areas where gas
workers traditionally spent the summer and where in normal times winter workers
would be recruited and doubtless some of them were men who would hope to be
offered such winter work. However South Meth’s
agents had gone to many other areas to find men and held meetings of unemployed
men in order to recruit them. A recruiting meeting in Ramsgate was followed by
a letter of complaint from the local gasworks manager - his stokers had all
been signed up by South Met.[22]
Some others had come to London themselves looking for work because they had heard
that men were wanted or they had been sent there by workhouse relieving
officers.
Were some of these replacement workers ‘free labour’? These were 'all
those who wished to make their own independent contract with their employers
regardless of the trade-union position'.[23] They were in effect conscious strike breakers
recruited deliberately by ‘Free Labour’ agents.
The ‘Free Labour Association’ set up by William Collison[24]
is said to have been set up in early 1890 encouraged by the South Met. dispute.[25]
A local activist, C.Z.Burrows, a blacksmith with South Met. Since 1883 was a
Vice President.[26] It was not however necessarily the case that all
the new men were conscious strike breakers. Many of them probably knew nothing
about the issues in the South Met. dispute and only hoped to better their own
positions.
Livesey was certainly involved with the Free Labour Association, as
described by Collison although some years later, John Burns talking to a mass
meeting about free labour, said that Livesey 'dropped them like a hot potato.”[27]
Collison however described donations to the Association by Livesey, a visit to
their office and congratulatory letters.[28]
It was said that some men recruited through "labour agents' were
sometimes those classified by some as 'undesirables'. Speakers from Union
platforms complained about a contingent of young men from Birmingham who had
come for work, not been taken on and then proceeded to cause trouble. Police
court reports list a number of convictions on drunk and disorderly charges
among sixteen-year-olds with Birmingham addresses.[29]
These convictions were all in the Rotherhithe area and the Union officials said
this was an “undesirable element". It seems very unlikely that South Met. would
have taken on sixteen-year-olds for retort house work and whatever did they do
to shock Rotherhithe!
Pickets from the Union had some success in persuading some of the replacement
labour to go home by offering fares but the press carried other stories of men
who had come enormous distances to South Met. and not been taken on. Some of
these men were taken to the local poor law institutions and to police cells.
Will Thorne was not in London for the start of the South Met. dispute. He
was needed in Manchester to deal with disputes in the gas works there. As the press
ran stories of escalating industrial action throughout the country, managements
like South Met. became determined to stay in 'control' in the workplace.
Siege conditions prevailed in South Met.’s works. The replacement workers
learned what they had to do, were fed and bedded by management and paid a bonus
for it. Rumours soon began to spread that they were mutinous, starving, and
infested with lice and diseased. Some men were certainly injured through
inexperience of the work. Heavy fog and freezing conditions meant demand for
gas was high. Gas pressure and quality fell and there were stories of how “Jumbo",
[30]
the giant gas holder at East Greenwich, was pumped full of air to reassure the
public.
Public concern about the situation was expressed by the press which concentrated
on the supply of gas. Times felt that; "a majority of people regard this
strike as unreasonable and tyrannical". and they pointed out difficulties
which, they said, the public had in sympathising with a striking workforce
which was well paid and had downed tools on a point of principle.[31]
Others agreed - as in St. James' Gazette 'we hope that the general public will
support the gas company '.[32]
. The Standard agreed: 'The Directors of the South Metropolitan Gas Company are
doing their duty in determining to resist this demand"[33].
The Daily News said "the unions will do themselves more harm than the
employers'[34]
and the Daily Chronicle condemned the 'leftward' ideas in the profit sharing
scheme: 'Mr. Livesey should leave well alone and keep his profit sharing scheme
for consumption at a Toynbee Hall meeting’.[35]
Only the Star offered a more detailed discussion on the cost of gas,
coal prices and wages. They saw the profit sharing scheme as an attack on the
union and wished the gasmen ‘every success in defeating an impudent attempt to
impose upon them'.[36]
In the trade press Gas World, ever against Livesey, condemned the
profit sharing scheme describing it as 'specious' and Livesey's behaviour as ‘machiavelism'.
They said that the officers in the besieged works were being fed on lobsters. [37]
Others had noticed the supply of beer going into the works - despite Livesey's
well known temperance advocacy.
Local papers were more sympathetic since gas workers were among their paying
readership. South London Press described the strike committee as 'a fine
intelligent body of men' and ran a flattering profile of Will Thorne together
with a picture. They reported a request from
Livesey for board and lodgings for replacement workers in a local workhouse. The
Vice-chairman of the Lambeth Board of Guardians was currently speaking on gas
worker platforms and the reply was 'do you think that this is a common lodging
house'. [38]
Local political parties gave some support. Kennington Liberals had
already passed a resolution of support for the gas workers and this was
followed by Dulwich and Penge Liberals who also condemned police brutality
towards strikers. [39]
The Star then urging working class consumers to burn large amounts of
gas to try and run down the available supplies. They also suggested that
ratepayers should issue proceedings against the Company for an inadequate gas
supply. In Bermondsey a deputation to the local vestry was led by Harry Quelch,
the Social Democratic Federation activist. He urged them to sue the Gas Company
for breach of contract by reason of the poor quality of the gas. He was backed
by a Vestryman, Dr.Esmonde, who said that the poor light was seriously
affecting the eyesight of his patients (laughter). It was decided to write to
the Company concerning this breach of contract. The officers then said that there
was no formal contract only an 'understanding' and that any suing would have to
be done by the County Council.[40]
The other London Gas Companies met the Union leadership again at the
Cannon Street Hotel on 17th November [41]
and reached a large measure of agreement, the Gas Workers' manifesto published
on 7th December said 'they would always be indebted to the kind consideration
shown’[42]
and quoted H.E.Jones, Chairman of the
Commercial Company ‘'your interests are our interests; we cannot do without you’
and the Union 'devoutly wished for the peaceful working of the men so admirably
put .. at the Cannon Street Hotel'.
Jones wrote to the Times on 9th December " to point out the
benefits that Livesey had brought to gas workers in the past and regretting
what was obviously a misunderstanding on all sides” the Union should have
'attention and respect' and he pressed the right of the men to combine. He
wrote again on 31st December and was 'overwhelmed by the virtues of the strike
committee'.[43]
As the gas supply produced by South Met. began to improve the Union
began to flounder and in its published statements began to modify the terms on
which men would return to the works. The Company continued to ignore them - pointing
out that the men had left legally and could return if they wished; when
vacancies arose.
A series of would-be mediators emerged. Two local Members of
Parliament, Causton and Beaufoy, put themselves forward and at the same time a
group of non-conformist ministers approached the Company, followed by a local
Church of England vicar. Towards the end of December a more persistent approach
was made by two members of the Labour Association – an organisation set up to
promote profit sharing. However, Ivimey and Greening were no more successful
than the churchmen.
A more successful strike was running concurrently with that at South
Met, and was very sympathetic to the gas workers there. This was undertaken by
the Coal Porters Union under the leadership of Michael Henry. the Coal Porters
covered several other industries NS Through them the dispute spread to the Tyne
where Henry went to persuade colliers to black ships bound for South Met. works
in the Thames and through this the Sailors and Firemen's Unions were involved.
Ships on the river were picketed and some crews taken off. There was an attempt
to resolve this through a Conference at the Mansion House with Cardinal Manning
and other 'self appointed mediators". Livesey dismissed this saying that
such people had no understanding of the dispute nor of the conditions
prevailing in industry.'
Another concurrent strike took place at the Government owned Royal Arsenal
gas works in Woolwich. This was on the eight hours issue and led to questions
in Parliament.
Mass meetings and demonstrations continued and speaker at one
threatened Livesey's life, to be condemned by all sides. on 21st December the South Met union officers
put out a statement saying that while they could not accept the profit sharking
agreements 'we cannot forget the attachment that we feel to out old employers
... and. nothing would give us greater satisfaction than a return to our
previous relations '.
The Gas Workers Union was aware that they needed the help of other
unions and asked 'whether the trade unions of England would allow them to be
defeated?' ‘By 25th December speakers said that they would bring out the men at
the Beckton works. But they did not come out and there was then no hope that
the South Met. men could win the dispute. gas was being made nod the Union
members were all out of work - all they could do was to try and persuade
Livesey to take them back.
'Mr. Livesey had said if the strikers went ' back to work they have to
go back for twelve hours - they had come out for eight hours and would go back
for eight hours and the dignity of Englishmen would not let them do anything
else. They were not going to creep and crawl to Livesey for work... ' This is
all fine and stirring stuff but they had not come out for eight hours but for
the right to organise. Other trade unions had not rallied round. Only the
Hatters all 800 of them had agreed a contrinbution as did the Glass Blowers.
Harry Quelch said he knew why the othere unions had not rallied round..
'the trade unions had too long been the aristocracy of Labour and cared no more
for the Gas Workers in their struggle.... than if they had been the red
Indians. ' A meeting of unions at Mile End only advised them to ask the London
Trades Council to negotiate a settlement. Losing sympathy on all sides, the South
London Gas Workers went, as advised, to
the London Trades Council who co-ordinated a meeting between them, the Coal
Porters, and the Sailors and Firemen. The strike was called off
The Union announced that the Company had agreed to an eight hour system
and to take men back if and when vacancies occurred and hoped the Company would
take back men with families first. Livesey wrote to The Times explaining that a
ballot had been held at the various works on the subject of the shift system
and that men at most works had voted to go back onto the eight hour day. If the
twelve hour system was to remain it was because the workers had voted for it
themselves. He was quite happy, he added, to take back old workers - he had
indeed already taken many back. Unfortunately spring was coming and vacancies
would be few.
If this was an agreement it was of the most humiliating sort. Livesey
did not have to agree to anything - he had already implemented most of its
clauses, or said he had. The strike had gained nothing but a lot of destitute
ex-gas workers. The strike headquarters now became a welfare agency
distributing charity to those without work and was soon to be visited by
Livesey with a donation.
The Union had instigated the strike with more rhetoric than finance. The
strike had been entirely run by local branch members who were probably
inexperienced. They had come out on an issue not readily understood by the
general public and not easily sympathised with even by people who were
committed trade unionists. They had engaged in strike action involving
thousands of workers needing strike pay with virtually no reserves and
dependent on street collections. They had given the Company time to prepare for
a lengthy strike and then given a week's notice. They had also taken on a
company with consierabke reserves. Their optimism and naivety was astounding
and a contributory reason to the decline of the union within the next few years
must be the disillusionment of ordinary workers with them.
[17] Obviously there were exceptions to this –
death, retirement, sickness, agreed holidays, compassionate absences, etc. The idea is to stop strikes.
[21] These episodes were
extensively reported in the local press – mainly Kentish Mercury and South
London Press. There were also some
reports in the Labour Press – mainly Justice and Labour Elector.
No comments:
Post a Comment