Jack Fitzgerald
Source: Justice, 13 April 1901.
Transcription: Socialist Party of Great Britain.
HTML Markup: Adam Buick
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2016). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit "Marxists Internet Archive" as your source.
Correspondence
Dear Comrade,—H. C. Bye, in his hurry to defend John Ward, accuses Smith of attacking the Navvies' Union, when he had only attacked Ward's "advice " to the navvies.
The value of Ward's unsupported statements have already been pointed out in JUSTICE, and Bye must have rather a poor case when he brings forward no other evidence than Ward's word.
In support of the statements given in JUSTICE, re Ward's inaccuracies, I will attempt to deal with the portion of the report concerning London in 1896, leaving comrades in the other districts mentioned to do the same (if they think it worth while) in their cases.
Ward says : "1896 saw a joint demand for advance of wages by all the trades belonging to the London Building Trades Federation, each society pledging its word to stand by the others until a joint understanding could be arrived at. . . The London master builders . . . offered the bricklayers ½d. advance. The bricklayers took the bait, and left the other sections to fight as best they could, doing 'our work' again for seven weeks."
The above contains three false statements, viz., 1896 did not see a joint demand ; the M.B.A. did not offer the bricklayers ½d. advance ; and the bricklayers did not do the navvies' work for seven weeks.
As these false statements have increased the bitterness already existing between the bricklayers and labourers, and many people outside the building trades have accepted them as true, probably because the bricklayers are the best-abused body of working men (a writer in the high-priced Nineteenth Century for March filling several pages with their shortcomings from the architect's point of view), a short account of the facts may clear the ground somewhat.
In November, 1894, the M.B.A. rather suddenly gave notice to the various building trades of the abolition of the working rules for the London district, some new rules of their own being brought forward in their place. I may here state that the M.B.A. would not recognise the London Building Trades Federation in any negotiations, but always dealt with the separate trades. The more energetic of the bricklayers wished to reply at once with a counter-claim for an advance and reinstatement of working rules. Unfortunately this was not done; among others, the plasterers saying they saw no grievance in the matter. Unlimited hours of work no grievance ? Several meetings were held between the delegates of the various trades, and on May 31, 1895, the following resolution was proposed by W. Stevenson (U.B.L.U.) and seconded by A. Humphreys (N.B.L. and G.L.): "That we recommend the trades to take a vote of their members to give notice to the builders for a code of working rules and a 1d. per hour increase in wages."
Under the old rules six months' notice, to expire in May, was required from either side for any alteration of rules. As a vote of the whole of the members of the O.B.S. has to be taken before a district can claim support from the general fund for action re new privileges, the E.C. of the O.B.S. issued the voting papers as given by the above resolution ; and the majority being in favour, sent notice to the M.B.A. as agreed upon, This notice was published in the daily papers at the time.
The notice, of course, going in on November 1, 1895, on December 18, 1895, the secretary of the L.B.T.F. wrote, asking the E.C. of the O.B.S. if they were moving in the matter, and received a reply in the affirmative. No other trade had sent their notice up to then, but on February 21, 1896, a delegate meeting was held of the other trades, but the O.B.S. did not send a delegate because the delegates had strict orders from the members of the O.B.S. that the negotiations must finish in April to avert a strike.
On April 30, 1896, the M.B.A. agreed to a ½d. advance and a modified arrangement of working rules, which were signed by both parties. The L.B.T.F. held a meeting on April 18, 1896, when it was elicited that the labourers and several other societies had not even then sent in their notices, and they did so only after that meeting.
On May 4 W. Stevenson and W. Thorne waited upon the central committee of the O.B.S. with the following questions.
1. Would they, as a committee, sanction our members to work, and serve themselves in the ordinary course of laying bricks.
2. Would they sanction their members to work with free labour labourers.
The C.C. explained they had no power to prevent their members working where the new conditions were observed, but they would certainly advise them not to work under the conditions mentioned, and asked to be notified in the event of any complaint. One complaint was received from the Gasworkers direct and one from the same union through the L.B.T. F. W. Thorne was asked to call on the C.C. re the second complaint, but did not attend.
On the other hand a large number of members of the O.B.S. were paid strike allowance to keep away jobs where blackleg labourers were at work, and this action cost the O.B.S. About £2,000.
Of course, the above does not cover the whole ground, which would take far too much space, but I have given the dates of the various meetings mentioned, and if H.C. Bye cares to look them up he can verify them. If he is connected with the N.B.L. and G.L., as his letter seems to imply, it is rather curious if he was not aware of the facts—Yours fraternally,
J. FITZGERALD