THE LATE W. K. COWIN, M.H.K.
[from Reminiscences of M.L.P.]
This was a strike which should never have taken place, and should have been avoided if common sense had prevailed. The formation of the Workers Union in 1917 resulted in the employers uniting in the Employers Federation, This was undoubtedly to the advantage of the Union, Instead of [50] dealing with individual employers, we were able, by meeting round the table, to fix a minimum rate of wage (with plus rates for the more highly-skilled occupations), and hours of labour and working conditions.
When the Workers Union was founded in the Island in 1917 we were attached to the Manchester area office. The officials of that area were of a type, shall I say, above the average, and the avoidance of pitfalls in the early days was due in a large degree to the advice I received from those officials. I was given full autonomy in dealing with affairs of the Union in the Island, and only on rare occasions was it necessary to refer anything to the area office. Amalgamation with the Transport and General Workers Union brought about changes. The Island was transferred to the Liverpool area, whose officers were mainly concerned with dock labour.
In the early part of 1935 there was a sharp rise in the cost of living, and a claim was put to the Employers Federation for a substantial rise of 10/- a week for general workers, An offer of 2/- was rejected, which was afterwards increased to 5/-. An impasse occurred, and an offer of arbitration was made, which I readily accepted, so sure was I that a good case could be made for our demand.
I informed Liverpool office of my acceptance of arbitration, but I got a peremptory reply to rescind my decision. A meeting was called and was addressed by Liverpool officers, who induced the meeting to refuse arbitration and declare a strike.
The response to the strike call was good, but as we were on the eve of the visiting season the Government Secretary (Mr. Sargeaunt) prevailed on both sides to meet round the table. The meeting lasted several hours, I based my claim on the cost-of-living figures published in the "Labour Gazette." I took the group figures in rotation, taking fuel and light first, and leaving the food group to the last. Our claim was vindicated inasmuch as we got within 2/- of the demand.
Again I say the strike could have been avoided, as arbitration achieved almost all we asked for.
[51]
IMPROVEMENT of the conditions of farm workers played an important part in the activities of the Workers Union in its early stages. Public demand for cheap agricultural produce kept wages at a low level. Following the First World War there was an awakening of interest in trade union organisation among farm workers, and large numbers joined the Workers Union throughout the Island.
Farm labour was so cheap that it paid a farmer to send a man, horse and cart to Douglas or other quaysides and take their place in the queue to get their load of coal which was being imported by the Farmers' Club, which sold the coal at cost to members.
MECHANISATION was almost non-existent, and the work on a farm was very arduous, with long hours. Harvest-time meant extra work, and one of the first efforts to improve labour conditions was an application for "harvest money." The demand was a modest one of ten shillings per week.
As there was no organisation among farmers, negotiations were difficult, Approach had to be made to individual farmers, who for the most part were members of the Farmers' Club, a purely trading association.
I received from the secretary of the Club a letter stating that the application was received favourably, and that meetings of farmers in the four districts of the Island were to be called with the object of forming a Farmers' Union, Such a Union would then consider the demands, and other representations made by the Workers Union.
Letters were also received from various farmers agreeing to the principles of the demand, several suggesting that the bonus should take the form of a fixed sum, as in the event of broken weather, harvesting operations might extend over from four to eight weeks.
The outcome of these negotiations was the establishment of a Farmers' Union, and a bonus of 30/- being agreed upon to cover the period of the harvest.
[52] During the course of the negotiations several farmers expressed themselves as favourable to the creation of an Agricultural Wages Board on which the men's union would have representation along with the Farmers' Union. This was the forerunner of the present Agricultural Wages Board.
In October, 1918, the first attempt was made to fix a recognised minimum wage for the Manx farm worker. A demand was made to the Farmers' Union for a minimum wage of 38/- a week, with increased payment to higher-skilled men, for a week of not more than 55 hours (with a half holiday on Saturday, and any work on Sunday to be paid for at overtime rates), To this the Farmers' Union replied with an offer of 30/- without any "privileges" and no change of hours (which were not limited).
This the Workers Union declined to accept and urged members not to re-engage except on terms to be settled between the Unions. The question became acute and many farmers re-engaged their men on the terms demanded by the Union.
Eventually a conference of the two bodies was agreed upon. It took place in St. Matthew's Hall and lasted three hours. Finally it was agreed to accept a week of 58 hours with a minimum wage of 35/- a week (18 years of age and over) with higher rates for higher-skilled men. Thus was established for the first time a recognised minimum wage for the Manx farm worker.
Within a year a further demand was made for an increase of wages. The claim was submitted to arbitration.
The arbitration board consisted of Mr. Leigh Goldie Taubman (chairman), Mr. G. Fred Clucas and Mr. R. E. E. Quilliam. The Farmers' Union were represented by Messrs. Wm. C. Christian, J. K. Wilcocks, F. S. Dalgleish and E. Cormode, and the Workers Union by Arthur Hadley, Richard Kneen and myself.
The arbitration board awarded 40/- as a minimum wage, with 2/- for Sunday work (which was to be kept to a mini mum). The 2/- to be paid whether called on duty or not.
As a concession to giving way to 58 hours instead of 55 hours, the winter hours were reduced to 51.
[53]
THE largest Labour demonstration ever held in the Island was staged by the Workers Union on a Sunday afternoon early in April, 1920. From a branch of ten members formed on March 17th, 1917, it had grown in strength to a member ship of 2,000. Was it any wonder, then, that they were proud to "show the flag"? Headed by the Laxey Brass Band (all members of the Union), the Douglas branch, together with contingents from Ramsey, Peel, Castletown, Laxey and Rushen, assembled at Salisbury Hall, and marched by way of Victoria Street and the Promenade to Villa Marina, where a mass meeting was held.
Mr Arthur Hadley, the Labour candidate for Ramsey whom the older generation will remember as president for many years of the Isle of Man Football Association) presided. In his opening remarks he explained that the meeting was called for propaganda work in order to clear up what he described as misunderstandings concerning the operations of the Union
The guest speakers were Mr. Charles Duncan, M.P., the general secretary of the Union, Mr. George Titt, the regional secretary, and Mr. Sam Whittall, organiser.
Mr. Duncan paid tribute to the work of the Insular Branch officers and to the improved conditions they had been able to achieve in the short time of the existence of the Union. The Isle of Man, he said, was a small, compact community and had an opportunity of setting the pace for the mainland in legislation for the well-being of the community. Labour had secured four seats in the House of Keys, and he hoped on future visits to see that number increased. The formation of the Union had resulted in the formation of the Employers Federation, which, he said, was a good thing, as it afforded opportunitics of meeting the employers to settle grievances rather than having to resort to strike action. He urged the members to be loyal and show goodwill to each other, and then, he ventured to say, no man could put a limit on their success.
[54]
IN 1924 the Workers Union assumed a new role - the protection of tenants threatened with eviction. The 1920 Rent Restriction Act had come to an end and the Legislature had refused to extend it. It was said the emergency had ceased and there would be no hardship, as things would soon right themselves. It didn't turn out so. It was estimated that there were round about a hundred cases in the Courts for possession orders. It was because of the contemplated hard ship that the Workers Union and other members of the Labour Party decided to do what the Legislature had failed to do.
I well remember one instance where news got around that the lockman was about to take action. A large crowd assembled outside the house and defied the law, knowing full well the penalty which might await them. The eviction did not take place.
Whether or not the action of the Workers Union impressed those in authority, it nevertheless resulted in a new Bill being introduced in the House of Keys, by Mr. Ramsey Johnson.
Should men on winter work schemes be paid less than the full standard wage? This question has been raised in Tynwald several times, and but for the fact that there were Labour representatives in the Court the cut would have been made.
In November, 1922, an attempt was made to pay men on winter "unemployed" work schemes 10 per cent. below the standard rate of wages for general workers which had been approved by agreement between the Employers Federation [54] and the Workers Union. All kinds of arguments were advanced for doing this that it was making farm workers dissatisfied; that there should be some differentiation between the Wages of Highway Board permanent men and the "unemployed" men.
Strong opposition was offered by the four Labour Members (Messrs, Christopher Shimmin, James R. Corrin, Gerald Bridson and myself), I had been laid up with illness and the Governor suggested I should address the Court seated. I thanked the Governor, but replied that I could the better give vent to my feelings of disgust if I remained standing ! The argument was advanced that the "unemployed" men did not work as hard as other workmen, To which we put the query: "Does anyone really believe that the best way to get men to work harder is by reducing their wages?" Labour, we urged, was too often accused of having nothing of a instructive policy to offer, but that it was only concerned with strikes, That came from a lack of understanding of the real aims of Labour, whose watchword is always "Humanity first"
Mr Richard Cain (who was then a member of the House of Keys for Ayre) gave a spirited speech in opposition to the cut, and paid a glowing tribute to the Labour Members, of whom he said the workers ought to be proud.
The motion was defeated by twelve votes to eight, the four labour Members being among the twelve.
ANOTHER attempt was made in July, 1925, when the Isle of Man Farmers' Club carried unanimously a resolution that all men on "unemployment" schemes be paid 20 per it less than the wages paid to permanent Highway Board men This was forwarded to every Member of Tynwald, promising full support of the agriculturists of the Island.
And in Tynwald in July, 1927, another attempt was made to reduce the wages, again without success.
[56]
THE RECENT scarcity and soaring prices of potatoes called to mind a similar state of affairs which occurred in the early months of 1920, Then, as this year, the short crop was given as a reason for the steep increase in price. Then, despite the short supply, potatoes were being shipped from. the Island.
"Direct action" by workers to protect their interests is decried by those whose circumstances may not be so hardly affected, but direct action was necessary in March of 1920 to prevent a famine of potatoes in the Island.
Approach had been made to the Government to control the export of potatoes, but all efforts had met with failure. This resulted in a special meeting of the Isle of Man District Council of the Workers Union being called to consider the situation, There was a large attendance of delegates, every district and village in the Island being represented. Mr. Arthur Hadley (Ramsey) presided. He said the crisis was brought about, not so much by the farmers, but by individ uals who had gone about buying up potatoes and were now trying to ship them. The poor were being particularly hard hit, as potatoes constituted a substantial part of their diet. The discussion which followed eventuated in a unanimous resolution calling on all members of the Workers Union to refuse to handle any potatoes for shipment. Our members loyally obeyed the call, and by their direct action succeeded in doing what the Government had declined to do.
A TESTING TIME for the Union came in August, 1921. All increases in wages had been argued on the basis of increased cost of living. At the time the Workers Union was formed in 1917, the cost-of-living figure was 90 points above pre-war, By December, 1919, it had risen to 125 points; February, 1920, to 130 points, and in July, 1920, to 152 points. [57] Wages had risen to 57/9d. a week. By May, 1921, the cost-of living figure had come down to 128 over 1914, and by August of that year had fallen to 120 points. On this account the employers demanded a reduction in wages, This proved a testing time for the Union, the outcome of which was the establishiment of a basic wage of 28/- a week, with a sliding scale of increase of a shilling for every five points increase in the cost of living, which meant a wage of 52/- a week. I well remember the tussle we had (Mr. J. H. Cowley, Mr. John Ps tly and myself) with Messrs. F. Edmondson, Mark Carine and Major Cowell (builder).
One important improvement in the new agreement was the guarantee of a full week. Previously many workers had no such guarantee, being subject to short time due to weather and other conditions.
WHAT was perhaps the greatest effort to organise female labour and draw up working agreements with employers was made during the years of the First World War. And what a task it was ! Industries, including the preparing of material for aircraft which was carried on in the Palace and other places, brush-making at Tromode, and glove-knitting at various establishments throughout the Island. These industries were all new to the Island, and information as to working conditions and rates of pay had to be obtained from branches of the Workers Union and Hosiery Workers Union in England and Scotland.
Having been approached by a large number of girls to form a local branch of the Workers Union, the membership of which was entirely male, I decided to open up a branch in Douglas of the Workers Union specially for female labour. The girls rallied round in full force, and it was not long before I was meeting the employers concerned.
The first industry I had to deal with was that of brush making. The over-running of France, Belgium and Holland [58] by the Germans caused a gentleman named Dupont to take up residence here and open up an establishment at Tromode. I was greatly helped in my negotiations by John Kelly, who later, in 1929, was elected as Labour representative in the House of Keys for the constituency of North Douglas. I found Mr. Dupont a fair-minded man to deal with, and the working conditions agreed with him were very favourably received by his employees.
On the termination of hostilities the business of brush making was taken over by Messrs. Stephen and Tossie Clucas, of laundry fame. In order to help in keeping employees in the laundry fully employed, their labour was utilised on slack days in brush-making. What a pity this industry was allowed. to cease !
The organising of the girls employed in the glove industry was considerably helped by girls who took on the task of shop stewards and collectors, Names which come to mind in this respect are Grace Radcliffe (whose father was employed in the "Times" Office), Fanny Kewley and Lilian Morrison (now the wife of Mr. Shimmin, the hairdresser). The negotia tion of agreements was, however, a more difficult job. As the knitting of gloves was split up into several operations, and the earnings were on a piece-rate basis, it took some calculat ing what was a fair rate in order to give the operative a fair return for her labour. Comparable rates were fixed with those of English and Scottish firms.
Factories or workshops were set up in the out-towns, and the girls were looked after by Mr. Robert Caley and Arthur Hadley in Ramsey, and Richard Kneen in the South of the Island.
These industries were a godsend, and the wages paid were the means of keeping the wolf from the door of many a home.
A gentleman to whom great credit is due in this respect was the Rev. Copeland Smith, a Methodist Minister stationed in Douglas at that time. By his efforts, factories were built and equipped, and employment given to a large number of women. [59] Many a female boarding-house or apartment-house keeper had reason to be grateful to the reverend gentleman for his help, as it provided, in many instances, their only means of subsistence.
There was no assistance given during the First World War similar to that given in the years 1939-46 by the War (Local Conditions) Committee, on which I had the privilege of serving along with Messrs. Keith Groves, Fred R. Grundey and. William Cunningham, under the chairmanship of His Honour Deemster W. Percy Cowley.
The statement made in Tynwald recently that it is expected there will probably be 1,150 men registering for work at the Labour Exchange in October, and the probability that after the Government Boards and local authorities, as well as private employers, have taken their men from the register, there will still be left a large number of men unprovided for, has aroused in the minds of men likely to be among the unemployed a question which was asked thirty or more years ago "Is it fair that some men should be guaranteed a full winter's work while others are left unemployed, with. unemployed pay as their only income ?"
Government Boards and local authority officials are given freedom of choice of men on the register, and it is natural that in taking their choice those officials pick men who have given satisfaction in previous employment.
Opposition to this method is given by those men who have never been given an opportunity to show their capabilities. It is arpned that this is very disheartening to a generation whe have never been given a chance, and because of their continued unemployment throughout the winter are often. accused of being "work-shy."
What is the alternative? Several suggestions have been made from time to time to deal with the problem.
One proposal was made, before the coming of unemployment insurance, that each registered man should stand down one month during the winter months 1st October to 30th April [60] and during that period he should receive 25/- a week from Government funds, and be given a freedom to earn what he could during those four weeks.
The idea behind the proposal was to encourage men to continue their seasonal employment as long as possible, being given the guarantee that whenever they should become registered as unemployed they would be sure of a winter's work (less the month).
It was the custom of officials to pick their men early in October, and in their anxiety not to be left stranded many men left their employment in order to be on the list when the officials visited the Exchange to pick their men.
This proposal, however, did not meet with approval from a majority of the men.
A further attempt to deal with the situation on similar lines was made in the 1930's. The Public Works Commission had discussed the problem, and as a result a resolution was moved in Tynwald by His Honour Deemster Cowley. This resolution proposed that the work be shared by all registered men, with the exception of a two weeks "stand-down" period. The Deemster put his case in a well-reasoned manner and put himself in the position of the man left workless, who, he argued, had a justifiable grievance.
The resolution failed.
AN EVENT of great importance to the Trade Unions was the introduction and passing, without opposition, in July, 1934, in Tynwald, of the Fair Wage Clause.
In the course of the debate it was stated that the Govern ment Boards inserted a clause in all contracts that wages and conditions agreed upon by employers and trade unions must be complied with, but difficulties arose with sub-contractors, who were in the habit of breaking the agreement. The passing of the Fair Wage Clause prevented this, as it covered sub contractors as well as contractors.
[61]
THE ACTION of the Manx Government in issuing Manx internal currency notes recalls to mind that I made a similar proposal over thirty years ago.
Ai that time Tynwaid was discussing the project of strengthening the Red Pier (now known as King Edward VIII Pier), Naturally, the finding of the money to finance the scheme cropped up, and at times completely overshadowed. the necessity or otherwise of the scheme. There were several very divided opinions on this issue. Some Members took the view that considering the Island's financial position the time was inopportune to launch out on an expenditure of £220,000, which was the estimate submitted to Tynwald for the carrying out ot the works,
Several Members (including Christopher Shimmin, the labour Member for Peel) contended that the money could be found by an increase in income tax, and thus avoid any borrowing, In his argument against borrowing he quoted that where Great Britain had borrowed the sum of £7,500 millions they had already actually paid £4,000 millions and weres till burdened with the loan.
What led up to the debate was a resolution submitted by the Attorney-General that the Manx Government take steps to borrow the sum of £220,000 in order to proceed with the works. In making his case, he pointed out that the work would take several years to carry out, and it would only be necessary to borrow the sum needed as the work proceeded.
Several Members opposed the borrowing, as it would, in their opinion, be an obstacle to the development of any future works that might be brought forward.
It was at this juncture in the debate that I proposed what, to some people, was an unorthodox method of financing the scheme. I suggested that instead of borrowing the money, and incurring the payment of a large sum in interest pay ments, the scheme could be financed by the issue of Manx Government notes.
[62] I was asked by Deemster Farrant what security there was for the issue of such notes, and my reply was that there was the same security that there would be if the money was borrowed the security of the Manx Government. The Deemster followed up by a further inquiry as to how the notes were to be redeemed. I replied that while my suggestion might appear Utopian to some people, the method had been applied by the Government of Guernsey in the building of a market to deal with the produce of the island. The revenue from the market dues was paid into the Government, and in due course of time the note issue was redeemed, and a public ceremony took place when the notes were burnt.
The suggestion was very favourably received, the Governor remarking that it gave them furiously to think.
Deemster La Mothe thought my suggestion a very valuable one, and moved that the resolution for borrowing should be deferred in order to carefully examine it. This was supported by the Speaker (Mr. G. F. Clucas) and was carried.
I supplied further information on the subject to His Excellency, who was very much impressed. I could not see why the Isle of Man could not do what Guernsey had done, and felt that the signature of Claude Hill (the Governor) on my proposed note was equally as good as that of Thomas Cubbon (then Isle of Man Bank manager) on the Isle of Man Bank note.
His Excellency, in the resumed debate, said he had gone carefully into my proposal, but it was not an easy thing to do, as it would require an Act of the Imperial Parliament.
What conversations went on between our Government Office and the British Government on the subject I don't know, but this I do know that my proposal got no further.
Was it because the Imperial Government saw the light of nationalisation of banking ? Or was it that vested interests in the Island saw in my proposal the first stage in the Socialisation of industry ?
[63]
WHEN Progressives become impatient when their ideas for development and improvements are bogged down, they should not give up the battle. Heart-breaking it may be, but history shows that a good idea, in the end, breaks the barrier of resistance. What is accepted today as sensible and natural in much of our community organisation probably began in the mind of one or two men who had to fight insistently and persistently to achieve any forward movement. Few live to see the results of their strivings.
In 1924, by invitation of Mr. Fred R. Grundey, then Director of Education, I addressed a meeting of local Rotarians in the Sefton Hotel on the subject of "School-Leavers and the Encouragement of Apprenticeships." A good deal of apathy existed amongst parents and youths in the matter of learning a trade. The tendency was a preference for the immediate earning of bigger money in blind-alley occupations rather than a consideration of the future.
The plan I put before the meeting for their consideration was the setting up in each of the four High-Bailiff's districts of a joint committee, such committee to be composed of equal numbers of employers' federations and trade unions repre sentative of the trades concerned, with the addition of three representatives of the Education Authority. The duties of the joint committees to be the registration and indenturing of apprentices, and advising as to the provision and supervision of a suitable course of instruction and technical education. The joint committees to hold the indenture papers of all apprentices, and on the completion of apprenticeship to furnish a certificate to that effect.
My suggestion was that boys, before leaving school, should be encouraged to enter a trade, and having decided to do so, to state the trade which they wished to enter. The teacher in the school could give guidance in this direction. Before being indentured my suggestion was that he should serve a probationary period to see whether he was suitable or sufficiently interested to continue.
Having been indentured, the youth would be compelled to attend instructional classes on at least one day a week, [64] the employer to allow time off work to attend such classes. In addition, the youth should attend evening classes of such a nature as would be of benefit to him.
Following this meeting, in 1925 a committee was appointed by the Douglas Rotary Club to inquire into, amongst other things, the position of boys about to leave school. This committee included the Town Clerk of Douglas (Mr. Alexan der Robertson), Messrs. Charles Fox, R. D, Gelling, T. R. Radcliffe, R. E. E. Quilliam and Mark Carine. Co-opted on that committee were Messrs. F. R. Grundey, Ramsey G. Johnson, M.HLK., W. C. Craine, M.H.K., and myself.
To discuss the matter with a view to obtaining every shade of opinion, a round-table conference was arranged between a sub-committee of the Rotary Club, the Employers Federa tion and trade union representatives. 'The apprenticeship scheme drawn up by me formed the basis of discussion.
The conference was held in the Town Hall, Douglas, on the 26th April, 1926, under the chairmanship of Mr, Charles Fox. Those present were Messrs. Mark Carine, R. Begg. Quillim, J. H. Cubbon, Stanley Creer and L. G. Meyer, representing the Employers' Federation; Mr. J. H. Cain, master bakers, and Mr. Stephen Quirk, master butchers. Trade union representatives covering the building trades, painters, tailors, bakers and shop assistants were also present.
The meeting progressed very harmoniously, and several amendments were made to my scheme (which I will call Scheme "A") and were embodied in Scheme "B." It was decided to circulate the amended scheme and report to a further conference. Unfortunately the General Strike (in England) of 1926 interfered with this further conference being held.
The amended scheme agreed with mine that any day or evening classes should be compulsory. The Education Authority declined to tackle the question of further instruction unless they were guaranteed a reasonable supply of students throughout the winter, which could only be done if the attendance was compulsory. [65] My suggestion of the four regional committees did not find favour with the employers. What I had in mind in my proposal to register all apprentices with the committee was . to overcome the objection of employers in the employment of apprentices that they could not afford to carry too many apprentices when business was quiet. My idea was to provide a pool from which employers could enmploy apprentices when business warranted it, and during periods when trade was slack it would be the responsibility of the Government through the Education Authority to give practical instruction in a recognised school.
Despite several attempts to get things moving, it was not until 1944 that the practical instructional classes now being held in Hanover Street School took shape a lapse of twenty years between my address to the Rotary Club and the giving effect thereto.
AMONG the many things to be decided in the Constitutional changes in our Insular Government were what are to be the powers and functions of the Governor.
This brings to my mind an occasion when I challenged a vote given by Sir Claude Hill in the Legislative Council on a Bill dealing with the introduction of road service vehicles into the Island.
Readers whose memories go back to the early years of this century will recollect how pedestrians travelling along our highroads were smothered in dust by passing horse-drawn vehicles.
The war of 1914-1918 brought about a revolution in motor driven vehicles. Motor cars, which were a rarity before the war, became a more common means of transport. This necessitated reconstruction of our highroads.
[66]On the recommendation of experts, the Highway Board initiated a Bill limiting the weight and seating capacity of chars-a-banc. The seating capacity was limited to 20. Under that legislation many thousands of pounds were invested by hackney coach owners.
Imagine the consternation of these men, whose industry provided a livelihood for so many people, when in defiance of the law of the country, 28-seater buses were placed on the roads. A Bill was introduced by the Governor, which to my mind legalised a breach of the law. I tried hard to defer the passing of this legislation until we got a measure which would prevent abuse of privileges, but the Bill was carried in the Council by the casting vote of the Governor.
I challenged the right of the Governor to give that vote, and I had the matter raised in the House of Commons through a Labour member of the House, and got a ruling from the Home Secretary, as a result of which the Governor had to climb down and withdraw that vote. The voting in the Council then being even, the position under the constitution was that the Bill fell.
But by some cajolery, the existing Act was amended, one or, two words being altered, and the running of the buses was legalised.
Subsequent events revealed that by the passing of that legislation, men who had sunk their whole savings in the hackney business were almost driven into bankruptcy. The existing transport companies were driven well nigh to it, and in that breaking-up process the very bus companies themselves were humbled in the dust.
If only a proper Act had been passed, giving the buses their proper functions, and the railways and chars-a-banc theirs, no such thing would have happened. [67]
A RECENT "out of order" ruling by the Mayor of Douglas at a Town Council meeting on a notice of motion by Councillor Charles Burke that the Home Secretary be petitioned to make a request to His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor to implement a resolution of the Council by approving regulations necessary for the carrying into effect of the principle of superannuation for Corporation manual workers, brings to my mind an occasion when conflict occurred between the powers-that-be and the request of the Manx Labour Party that legislation passed by the Manx Legislature be given the Royal Assent.
In a fight for justice for one section of the community it is possible to inflict an injustice on another section. This happened in 1928. The occasion was the introduction of the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Pensions Bill, and the refusal of the Home Secretary (Sir W. Joynson Hicks) to recommend for Royal Assent a Bill passed by the Manx Legislature to provide these benefits.
In previous instalments of these notes I have recounted the early struggles of the Labour Party for the imposition of income tax as opposed to the accepted policy of indirect taxation, and how in 1918 the Government was forced by a general strike to impose income tax to meet the cost of the flour subsidy to provide the cheaper loaf, and how that tax was made available in 1920 to provide Old Age Pensions for the first time.
This Bill departed from that principle, and benefits were payable on a contributory basis, on the lines of the English Act. This brought forth a protest from the Labour Members of the House of Keys (Messrs. William P. Clucas, J. R. Corrin, Walter Clucas Craine, W. K. Cowin, C. R. Shimmin and myself).
[68]The Bill was in the charge of Mr. A. H. Teare (Member for Ramsey), who explained the Bill in a very informative speech lasting four hours. It followed strictly on the lines of the Mnylish Act. This was severely criticised by several Members, as it excluded from any benefit the small one-man business man, the widows of men not covered by insurance provision, childless widows, etc., and after a lengthy discussion 'twas referred to a committee in February, 1927.
THE LATE W. K. COWIN, M.H.K.
The committee, after much delay, reported that it was felt that any deviation from the English Act would hold up the operation of the benefits in the Island.
In the course of subsequent debate, among other things the Keys altered the period of waiting from the time of entering insurance to the time of receiving benefits from two years to six months.
It was passed on to the Legislative Council, and after further consideration both by the Keys and the Council it was eventually sent on to the Home Secretary to receive the Royal Assent in July, 1928.
The Governor round about that time announced he had paid a visit to the Home Office and he was told that the Assent would not be given to the Bill in the amended form.
[69]As nothing seemed to happen following this statement, I asked Mr. W. T. Kelly, M.P. for Rochdale, to raise the question in the House of Commons, with the following result:
Mr. Kelly asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been arrived at on the Old Age, Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill passed by the Isle of Man Legislature, which is awaiting Assent ?
Sir W, Joynson Hicks: " My decision has already been made. The Manx Parliament, if they like, can pass an amended Bill, which will have my consideration."
Mr. Kelly: " Does that mean that the right hon. gentleman is asking the Manx Legislature to worsen the Bill that was laid before him ? "
Sir W. Joynson Hicks: "I cannot enter into the details of the Bill, but I told the hon. member in July that I could not recommend the Bill for the Royal Assent."
Mr. Wedgewood-Benn: "Under what powers does the right hon. gentleman exercise this right to veto Acts of the Manx Legislature ? "
Sir W. Joynson Hicks: "The hon. member must put a question down on that point."
The Home Secretary remained adamant and we had to submit to his ruling. As I have earlier remarked, in our fight for justice for one section of the community another section suffered an injustice by having their benefits withheld during the period of our dispute with the Home Secretary.
Looking up the Debates of that period, I find my final remark was:
"Even if we are defeated, we have the satisfaction of knowing that it is better to suffer defeat in a fight for justice than to achieve victory at the expense of the privation and suffering of innocent women and children."
[70]
IN the early days of the Manx Labour Party clashes with the Home Office officials happened very frequently. Sometimes in protest against interference with legislation which had been passed by our Legislature; at other times it was beseeching their aid in bringing about benefits which one branch or the other of our Legislature was withholding from our people.
In my last contribution, I recounted the occasion when the Home Secretary (Mr. Joynson Hicks) refused to recommend. for Royal Assent a measure providing for the benefits of widows, orphans and old-age pensions.
I am reminded by my old friend and colleague Mr. Gerald Bridson, J.P., who was a Labour Member of the House of Keys for many years, of another occasion when action was taken by the Manx Labour Party to right a wrong. The occasion was the rejection by the Legislative Council in 1925 of a Rent Restriction Bill which had been passed by the House of Keys.
When being considered by the Council, the then Attorney General asserted that there was no hardship existing, and ridiculed the statements made by me and other Labour Members. Our statements, however, were proved to be correct, as. the Courts were full of applications for possession or eviction.
A protest meeting was held on the shore at the bottom of Broadway, attended by about a thousand people, one of the speakers being a widow who Deemster Lamothe had put out of her house. I remember Gerald Bridson lambasting the Lord Bishop, the Attorney-General and W. C. Southward for their action, quoting the New Testament: "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers."
The Labour Party decided to send a deputation to see Mr. Arthur Henderson, and seek his aid in righting this wrong.[71] Arthur Henderson was fighting an election in Burnley, in Lancashire. Gerald Bridson and Walter Craine (Gus) were chosen for this purpose.
They had the utmost difficulty in getting an interview with Mr, Henderson, and when they did so, they were sent away, as Gerald puts it, "with a flea in their ear," and told to reform the Council as the House of Commons had reformed the House of Lords. Henderson refused to take any action.
Fortunately the Legislature recanted and passed a new Act, which doubtless avoided industrial action.
SPEAKING OF JUSTICE, in order to give some measure of support to it, I was responsible for introducing a Bill into the Keys providing for employment of disabled persons, many of whom had suffered disablement because of war service. I had been appointed Chairman of the Disabled Persons Committee (and still fill that position). One of the clauses in the Bill was the compulsion on employers to employ three per cent. disabled persons on their staffs.
The "thanks" for what these men had suffered in a war to protect his property was expressed in his opposition to the Bill when he (Mr. R. Q. Hampton) said: "The passing of the Bill will mean an addition of five per cent. to the wages bill of the firms, without any guarantee that they will get anything like value for it."
THE trade union movement is often accused of pursuing a policy of "all take and no give." This is not so, and I can give many instances of where employers asked for and were given help and assistance in overcoming difficulties in the running of their undertakings.
Particularly has this applied to the Isle of Man Railway and the Manx Electric Railway. In the early days of the Workers Union, negotiation and formulation of agreements with these two managements was difficult, but after the initial teething troubles had been overcome, relationships between the Union and the two companies were good.
[72]Wet weather round about August Bank Holiday week spelled disaster for the Manx Electric Railway, and it was invariably the practice at the end of the season for Mr. Edmondson, the general manager of the company, to send for me to meet him to discuss ways and means of solving difficulties.
It generally ended in calling a meeting of all employees and placing the financial position before them. My anxiety was always to avoid the discharge of any men and to assure them of a full week's wage. This sometimes meant the waiving of the agreement relating to overtime and a readjustment of hours. Nothing was done without the full consent of the men.
One means of saving in expenditure was effective by the good offices of Mr. Cornish, the Highway Board Surveyor General, who agreed to transfer a number of men from the Railway to the Dhoon Quarry, with an arrangement to release men when required by the Railway at Christmas, Easter, and any other special occasion.
THE WORKERS are often accused of "irresponsibility" in their industrial relationship with employers. The unofficial strikes which from time to time take place in Great Britain give credence to this accusation. Such action is undoubtedly undermining the principle of collective bargaining, through the recognised channels of joint industrial councils and arbitration courts.
The Isle of Man has been fortunately immune from "unofficialism," due in no small measure to the steps taken by responsible Labour leaders forty years ago.
There was at that time a small minority, spurred on by the success of the general strike for the bread subsidy in July, 1918, anxious to "get what they wanted" by irresponsible action."
[73] No machinery existed to deal with grievances between employers and employees, To right this, a deputation of the newly-formed Workers Union, in March, 1919, sought and was granted an interview with His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor (Sir William Fry) with the object of forming a Joint Industrial Council in the Island. The deputation consisted of William Clucas, Christopher Shimmin and S. Harrison (Peel), William J. Wilson (Castletown, David Boreland (Laxey), William Dickinson (Ramsey), J. R. Corrin (Rushen), and A. J. Teare (Douglas). Tom Gelling and James M. Shimmin accompanied the deputation as representatives of the Shop Assistants Union.
His Excellency gave the deputation a very sympathetic hearing, and congratulated the members on the way in which they had set forth their views.
A further meeting was held on 28th April, 1919, when His Excellency was accompanied by the Government Secretary (Mr. B. E, Sargeaunt) and Mr. William Cubbon (Manager of Labour Exchange. The Union representatives were accom panied by Councillor George Titt (area secretary). The Farmers' Union sent a representative in the person of Mr. Joseph Callister.
The question was raised by the Government Secretary as to whether a council such as suggested by the Union would be sufficient in itself, without legislation of any kind. Mr. Titt replied that was a question which was being seriously considered in England, in the interests of the employer equally with the employee, that decisions of the Joint Industrial Councils should be binding on all employers. He instanced the engineering industry, where 98 per cent. abide by decisions of the Council and 2 per cent. caused trouble.
The Governor suggested that some system of conferences might be arranged whereby "we may effect something which will benefit the community."
It was eventually decided to adjourn to May 19th and invite six representatives of each of the following Employ ers Federation, Farmers Union, and Douglas Trades and Labour Council, with Mr, William Cubbon (Labour Exchange) in attendance.
[74] -This conference was duly held and a sub-committce appointed to consider the best means of establishing a Whitley Council. The following were appointed the sub-committce: R. H. Collister and: William Moore (Farmers Union), Frank Edmondson, T. B. Cowley and W. L. Clague (Employers Federation), James R. Corrin, William P. Clucas and Alf J. Teare (Workers Union, James D. Fell, John W. Holden and J. C. Quine (Trades and Labour Council).
An informal meeting of the above representatives was held on the 3lst May, when it was reported that considering the doubt as to whether the findings of the suggested Industrial Council would be accepted by all those concerned, it was unanimously decided that an arbitration body should be created for the final solving of disputes.
This policy was adopted and has served its purpose ever since, and has been the means of avoiding industrial stoppages.
IS INTERCHANGEABILITY OF OCCUPATION THE ANSWER?
THE PROBLEM of the unemployed is once again upon us, with the end of the visiting season, and the number of men on the Register of Unemployed rising week by week, until soon it will pass the 1,000 mark.
This is a problem which has baffled the Island's Government for many years, but 36 years ago Labour members on a Commission set up to inquire into the problem and make recommendations put forward a plea that a first essential in an attempt to solve the problem was interchangeability of occupation.
The problem is not likely to grow less. On the other hand, with mechanisation being introduced to do much of the work hitherto done by hand, it is likely to increase. What steps are being taken to combat the situation? This query brings my mind back to 1926, when I asked a similar question of witnesses who appeared before an Unemployment Commission over which the late Sir Percy Cowley presided, and on which my colleague Mr. James R. Corrin and I had the privilege [75] of serving as members. Then, as now, a state of chaos existed at every season end, the only difference being that in those days the unemployed man and his family were without the assistance of insurance and social assistance.
My colleague and I held that a great deal of the problem, could be solved by adopting a system of interchangeability, of occupation.
As a first step to this end, it would be necessary to find out what were the actual labour forces required to meet transport and other services necessary to the carrying on of the visiting industry. With the co-operation of the Government Boards and departments of local authorities, which in many cases could practically close down their operations during the season and transfer their labour force to those services requiring a build-up, we felt that something could be done to close the gap.
That was our opinion 36 years ago, and I still hold that it is the first essential before the net number of men for whom provision has to be made in the winter can be properly estimated.
In an attempt to stop the drift of youth into blind-alley occupations following the 1914-18 war, I had the honour to co-operate with a number of local gentlemen who established classes for the training of cooks and waiters (so essential to a community catering for tourists). The Douglas Gas Company placed their premises in Victoria Street at the disposal of the committee, and they were fortunate in securing the services of a chef who, if I remember rightly, was employed by the Cabin Cafe, and Mr. Raineri took on the task of teaching waiters their duties.
The classes were a great success, and many of the youths so trained obtained good posts across the water.
I was given the opportunity of visiting two of these trainees when attending a conference in Edinburgh in 1938, along with the late Mr. W, Quayle, inspector for the Local Government Board. We went along to the hotel where they were employed and were given an opportunity of seeing them. They were happy in their work, and on asking the head-of the hotel his opinion of them, his answer was: "I wish I had a staff all as good !" [76]
Is there any reason why a similar scheme cannot be resuscitated ?
Could it not be made a condition of receiving unemployment benefit that youths should attend classes where they could undertake training in useful occupations and so stem the drift to "unskilled labourers" ?
IN THESE REMINISCENCES I think I have fairly covered the a ground I set out to do — recording the work of those pioneers who have long passed on to their Great Reward, and of those stalwarts still with us who in their old age can look back with pride on their past labours. We have found happiness in making others happy. What more could one wish for?
What I have written has been from letters and documents in my possession and from incidents which have left a lasting impression on me.
Before I close my writings, I feel I must refer to one who, though not a member of the Labour Party, co-operated with us in much of the work of reform. I refer to the late Sir Percy Cowley, C.B.E.
As Chairman of several Commissions inquiring into the problem of unemployment, and his interest in the youth of the Island, as evidenced in the active part he took in several training schemes, he did much to help those who needed help.
One of my last contacts with him was with regard to the Apprenticeship Training Committee and their work in training apprentices to trades. In order to overcome troubled seas I had submitted to him my observations on an amended registration scheme. In a letter to me the day before he went away to London on business he wrote thanking me for my observations and saying he would be glad to have a talk with me on his return.
But, to my regret, and to the regret of many others, he did not return.
THE END
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
| Any comments, errors
or omissions gratefully received The
Editor HTML Transcription © F.Coakley , 2024 |
||