and Caledonian companies are still in progress, and therefore it is impossible as yet to say how far the strike has been successful from the point of view of the men in securing that for which it was undertaken.[1] It appears also as yet unsafe to draw the conclusion that the results that have been, or that are likely to be, gained might have been gained by a strike of less duration and extent. The same reasoning would lead one to infer that the railway directors ought to have effected the changes that have just been made, or that are now in progress without incurring the risk of a strike at all. The fact is, however, that neither party knew the strength of the other. Their relative staying power had never been tested, and a test one day was inevitable. That the men could hold out for six weeks in spite of the rudimentary character of their organization was a revelation to the directors, and even to the men themselves; but that they did so, and that in doing so they inflicted upon the companies and upon the public losses out of all proportion to the loss they suffered themselves, must be a potent factor in any future discussion between the men and their employers. There can be no question that the men now stand as regards their employers in a position much more nearly approaching equality in the circumstances of their bargain than they did before.[2] It seems futile to discuss whether this could have been as well effected by a three weeks as by a six weeks strike. Moreover, the conditions of the settlement encourage the hope that the deterioration which had set in will be checked, that the railway service will no longer repel the best men, but that alike in the interests of the companies, the men, and the public, the employment may be made attractive enough to secure the most efficient labour of the grades required. This applies quite as much to the administrative as to the manual labour department. Both have been undermanned both quantitatively and qualitatively and overworked, and the crisis was the consequence.
The important point is not to justify nor to condemn either of the combatants, but to examine the struggle as one would any natural phenomenon, and to try to discover the causes of the crisis, and how far after the crisis the causes remain with the likelihood of producing in the future similar effects. What, then, were the causes of the strike, and how was it that discontent brought the men to the pitch of striking?
The Causes of the Strike.—1. As regards the railway companies:—(a) The leading cause of the strike was the mere fact of growth in dimensions without accompanying growth in administrative skill, personnel, and means. Rapidly growing corporations, like rapidly growing organisms of all kinds, pass through periods of delicacy and danger. These periods mark their transition from one plane of organization to another, function preceding organization on each plane. The dangers attending sudden expansion necessarily diminish as the
- ↑ Although several concessions have already been announced, e.g. reduction of hours of signalmen.
- ↑ It is probable that earlier settlement by arbitration or otherwise would have saved much public loss, but would also probably have resulted in a less definite improvement in the status of the men. The difference between the terms proposed by the North British Railway Company during the strike (to the Dundee deputation, see The Railway Strike, p. 87), and those finally arranged consisted in the provision that the grievances of the men were to be discussed in conference between the directors and representatives of the men, instead of the method formerly in vogue, viz., dealing through departmental managers with the men in grades. It is to be noted that the representatives of the men are all members of the Association.
