felt that, at all costs, the working classes must not be allowed to 'taste' power. The view was widely prevalent that the strike was an attempt to carry the labour war into Scotland, that it was one of a series, and that the railway companies should he encouraged to fight the battle of the general body of employers. It wes thought that if the demands of the railway men were granted, employees in other industries would make similar demands, and that the New Unionism[1] would break down the influence of the commercial classes and assume a share in the control of industry. The specific causes of the strike, the alleged intolerable length of the hours of labour,[2] the strength of the combination of the men, and their determination to effect a change in their conditions of work were wholly ignored in this view.
The Views and Proceedings of the Railway Boards.—In the view of the directors, the men were guilty of breech of contract, and they therefore refused to treat with them until they surrendered. The companies availed themselves of all the resources which the law allowed them; they evicted strikers from their houses;[3] they arrested funds supplied by the public for the maintenance of the men on strike;[4] they sued hundreds of the men for damages for breech of contract, and instituted proceedings under the Conspiracy Act with the object of proving that in leaving their employment without notice, the men had infringed Section 5 of that Act.[5] Throughout the controversy as prior to the strike the directors had carried on correspondence with the secretary of the Railway Servants' Association, a tacit though informal
- ↑ Although Mr. John Burns went to Scotland to render assistance during the later weeks of the strike, there is nothing to show that he or any of the leaders of what is called the New Unionism had anything to do with the promotion of the strike. The dread of the New Unionism was rather an ignorant dread, since the railway servants were not even organised up to the level of the Old Unionism, and had neither knowledge of nor sympathy with the New Unionism. The essential feature of the New Unionism, the concerted action of different trades, was altogether absent from the railway strike. An attempt was made by a section of the carters, it is said spontaneously, to promote a sympathetic strike in their ranks, but it did not succeed. To connect the railway strike save in the most distant way with the recent labour movements in London or elsewhere, were simply to misunderstand it. Even the important gain made by the servants in the North Eastern Railway came only to encourage the men after their resolution to strike. The threatened general strike of railway servants does not seem to have had any serious moaning.
- ↑ The often repeated statement that hours on duty do not mean hours of labour explains nothing. The strike was not made by the porters at sleepy country stations, but by men who alleged that they were suffering severe strain from spells of duty from twelve to eighteen, and even up to thirty hours at a stretch. It is quite obvious that the number of hours of duty must be considered in relation to the strain. The men allege that while this aspect of their work has been so considered as regards some grades of servants, it has not been sufficiently considered as regards others. From three to four hours of duty at a time is regarded as quite enough for express drivers, but in those grades whose work involves relatively less severe strain, it is alleged that there is a total disregard of strain. The men among whom discontent chiefly existed, were goods-drivers. The work of these men requires more skill and involves less strain than that of drivers of passenger trains. More skill is required in one onse than in the other on account of the use of inferior brake power on goods trains, and less strain is involved owing to the speed being less and hours of actual waiting being longer. The danger of overstraining passenger-drivers is obvious enough to have secured attention to their claims, while the claims of the relatively less highly strained goods-drivers have been neglected. The details of the conditions of railway employment will doubtless he brought out fully in evidence before the Select Committee on the Hours of Railway Servants.
- ↑ The Caledonian Railway Company at Motherwell, 5th January, 1891.
- ↑ The North British Railway Company, see Scotsman, 24th January, 1891. Cf. Scottish Railway Strike, p. 36.
- ↑ See case tried by Sheriff Buntine, at Stirling, and found 'not proven.' See Scottish Leader, 7th January, 1891.
