vla22: photo of Atli's throne, Torcello, Venice (Default)
Spoiler: this is a quick rewrite and consolidation of what's in Wikipedia on these topics, so there is some more detail there. I've just synthesised it, with a side order of this being one of the major topics for GCSE history, though there it came with a heavy dose of "and this is how Britain led the way in workers' rights", though you could just as well interpret it as "Britain industrialised early and led the way in exploiting their workforce until forcibly stopped". Obviously there are a ton of academic articles arguing about the nuance. Wikipedia will link to some, JSTOR will give you a lot more if you have access to it.

The tl;dr of it all is: Trade Unions (TUs) have been intimately involved with (male) suffrage. TUs were mostly male dominated. They're a primarily industrial phenomenon.

This is primarily focused on the UK, primarily England. Some of that is that there was undoubtedly a lot of activity there. Some of that is also that

There are two things feeding in to the Trades Union movement: one: Friendly Societies; two: the massive social and economic changes caused by the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, and the Industrial Revolution. One gives us a principle for organising groups; the other gives the impetus to form those groups.

The Friendly Societies originated in the mid-late 18th century, and have some things in common with the mediaeval guilds (mostly around organisational structure, and the notion of some benefits for members. Some of these societies were specifically Benefit Societies (e.g. for insurance, mutual aid, and so on. Like credit unions or building societies - both of which evolve from this).

The Wikipedia article on Benefit Societies (accessed today), says they are characterised by:
  • Members having equivalent opportunity for a say in the organisation
  • Members having potentially equal benefits
  • Aid goes to those in need (strong helping weak)
  • collection fund for payment of benefits
  • educating others about a group's interest
  • preserving cultural traditions
  • mutual deference.
All of those things characterise modern unions. The path to those modern unions was a very difficult one, and as new industries evolve, workers aren't necessarily covered by existing trade unions (see the recent creation of the https://iwgb.org.uk/ the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, which is trying to cover gig workers that aren't eligible to join other unions). This is a history of changing industries (starting with the great shift from agricultural workers + apprentices, to fewer agri workers, still apprentices, and the growth of factory workers) and economic difficulty and low representation.

From the mid-18th century onwards, new jobs were being created in cities. These weren't the agricultural jobs of the past (where labour was limited in winter, because it was too damn dark, with some seasons of intense work - like harvest). These were jobs using machinery such as the Spinning Jenny. The Napoleonic Wars took a lot of men out of the workforce, then dumped them back in (plus a lot of newly-disabled people - this also triggered a growth in workhouses, and started the fight for state benefits). Agricultural wages fell, and the price of corn went way up.  Mysteriously, this made people pretty pissed off.

First of all, unionising was difficult. The Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800 restricted "combining" or gathering together for a common purpose. These laws were strongly motivated by fear of the French Revolution - well, the fear that it might give people ideas.

They got ideas anyway. There were the Luddites (ca. 1805), who were textile workers protesting about their jobs being taken by lower waged workers using machines. The Luddites smashed machines, and they were arrested, put on trial (often these were show trials), and sentenced to transportation. Their protests were disrupted by military force, and new laws were written to discourage similar equipment sabotage.

There were the Factory Acts of 1802 and 1819, which started to restrict the use of very young children as factory workers. This didn't spring directly from trades unions. The first Factory Act came about because of the spread of an infectious disease, and this was the main motivation. Workers' rights were not really involved. The later Factory Act came about because of the work of Robert Owen, who was a factory owner, and a strong believer in socalist enterprise. It was he who coined the phrase: "Eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest". He coined this in 1817, and in modified form, it's been used by many campaigners since.

At the time of the second factory act (1819), there were already some trade unions, as the Manchester General Union of Trades formed in 1818. Trade Unions early on tended to be either regional, or to cover specific trades (or both). A lot of trade unions and political movements of the nineteenth century relied on increasing literacy. This was mostly because of the Sunday school movement, which arose in the mid-18th century, which wished to educate poor children (mostly boys) to read the Bible. "Ragged schools", with no or very low fees, arose from around 1818. This meant that there was enough literacy for there to be some readers in most groups of workers. The Industrial Revolution also reduced the cost of printing, so that it was feasible to distribute leaflets and journals.

Some early attempts at unionisation were harshly punished. The Merthyr Rising was a miners' strike in 1831 over low wages, unemployment, and the treatment of debtors. It was the first time a red flag was flown by workers. It was dispersed by the army, and some protestors were killed, many were imprisoned and transported, and one was hanged. The Tolpuddle Martyrs formed a Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers in 1834, to complain about the lowering of wages. They were initially sentenced to transportation (for "swearing false oaths" of membership), and later pardoned.

There were also some early attempts to get a National TU movement going, starting with the National Association for the Protection of Labour in 1830 (this mostly covered the textile industry), and the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union in 1834, which was focused on the building trade, and riven with disagreement. The New Model Unions were also forming around this time, but they tended to be for specific trades, generally ones which required higher literacy (e.g. Engineers), and they tended to focus on negotiation and education, rather than strike action.

Not long after (in 1838), the Chartist movement began. They weren't a workers' rights organisation, as such, but a group looking for male suffrage, a secret ballot, and fairer constituency boundaries (the boundaries had been drawn up for a primarily rural population, and didn't take into account growing cities such as Manchester). This rapidly tied into the Trade Union movement during the 1842 General Strike, where the demands focused on increased wages, and implementing the demands of the Chartlsts. The strike began when a mine owner broke the law about giving notice for pay reductions, but swiftly spread through the Potteries and into South Lancashire. Many Chartists were imprisoned as the strike was broken up.

As far as I can tell, everyone took the 1850s off, or at least they were doing things that didn't make it into history lessons or Wikipedia. Though that may have been a result of post-1848 panic, as the UK government got a bit twitchy after a bunch of European revolutions.

The 1860s saw a lot of consolidatory activity. The International Workingmen's Association was formed in 1864, which was an international alliance of socialists, communists, anarchists, and TUs. It suffered a lot from internal conflicts, and disbanded in 1876. Its heir was the Second International, founded in 1889. Marxism and Communism became an important part of the Trade Union movement. The UK Alliance of Organised Trade (1866) briefly existed; the Sheffield Outrages (explosions and murder) caused its end. The Trades Union Congress (which survives today) was formed in 1868, and was greatly aided by the eventual legalisation of unions in 1872. (Legalisation of unions elsewhere tended to come later on in the 18th century - in France in 1884, Germany 1897, and in the US from ~1880 onwards a series of court decisions made unions more permissible.)

The TUC was formed primarily from Northern unions from Manchester and Salford, and was trying to deal with a perceived London bias), and also some of the New Model Unions. Their ability to share information was probably aided by the 1870 Elementary Education Act, which permitted local government to set up schools to fill in gaps in provision, which led to increased literacy amongst the workforce. The TUC organised a congress in 1899, "to establish a voice for working people within Parliament". This led very directly to the modern Labour Party.

The first candidates weren't Labour Party candidates per se, they were candidates endorsed by the Liberal Party and sponsored by Trade Unions. The first candidate was in 1870. The TUC and socialist groups such as the Independent Labour Party, the Scottish Labour Party, and the Fabian Society gathered together to promote more candidates, and eventually we ended up with the Labour Party, with its very strong union roots.

You'll notice an almost complete absence of mention of women here. The TUs were mostly male led, though there were plenty of women employed in the textile industry, and they were more prominent in those unions and strikes. The Factory Acts in the mid-19th century reduced the working hours of women and children, thus categorising women as children, and not as adult workers. And I've not been able to find out how white the TU movement was in the 19th century, though I'm going to guess that it was pretty damn white, even if the workers themselves weren't. Though I'd expect wide regional demographics - London and Liverpool and Newcastle, as big ports, probably weren't so white, but the Potteries almost certainly were very white indeed. Sorry. My history education was somewhat silent on these matters, and spending a few hours reading isn't a substitute for having this embedded in a course of study. There is some material on 20th century union history that covers this: unionhistory.info/britainatwork/narrativedisplay.php, but there is a strong colonialist and racist legacy here.

The union movement was very successful; the UN Declaration of Human Rights has clauses in about the right to work (and not be discriminated against), the right to just remuneration, the right to join trade unions, and the right to rest and leisure. Those rights stem from the demands of Trade Unions across the world.
vla22: photo of Atli's throne, Torcello, Venice (Default)
I'm participating in the UCU strike on pay, pensions and working conditions. I intend to tell you why. This will also expose some inaccuracies and generalisations in a recent Guardian article about inequality in Cambridge: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/12/beyond-cambridge-spires-most-unequal-city-tackles-poverty?CMP=share_btn_tw

The article has the usual difficulty in understanding the gap between colleges and the University, and also doesn't even mention that colleges are not all equally endowed. I strongly support the campaign to get the colleges to pay the Living Wage, and I hope that this can be prioritised when the colleges do their small annual redistribution exercise.

But the thing I really want to take issue with is this:

"Academics are protected from the worst financial pressures of living in Cambridge, benefiting from central, subsidised college accommodation, free meals and access to a cheap, university-backed shared equity mortgage scheme."

This is basically not true for most employees of the University. The biggest employment group in the University is Researcher. Then there are the admin staff, and academic-related staff, like me. We don't get college accommodation (neither do married fellows - I'm not sure which fellows are eligible for it these days; also, having a room in college for teaching is not the same as having subsidised accommodation). We're not eligible to be affiliated with a college for the most part. The equity-backed mortgage scheme is only open to new lecturers who have moved to Cambridge, so if you'd done a post-doc in Cambridge and then earned your lectureship, you're out of luck.

Living in Cambridge is expensive. Average house prices are north of £400,000. Average rents are high - you can realistically expect to spend from £500 to £1000 a month on rent. The lower end is only if you're prepared to live in a house share, or are lucky enough to qualify for one of the University-owned flats. This turns my salary (~£36,000) from a very nice salary in most parts of the country to one that's not really adequate if one wants to buy a house or have children. And good luck saving for a deposit with those rents. And if I'm priced out of the housing market by all the tech employees, what of the assistant staff who are paid much less well than I am? (I should know, I was first employed as assistant staff. It's miserable.)

Like many people, I've got a contract for as long as we can win the grant money. Fortunately, we're on quite a long grant at the moment, so I've got nearly 30 months before I need to worry about my job security. I'll point out that I'm 40. There are plenty of researchers in my building who are around my age and who are on the same kind of contracts as I am. The people with the secure jobs are all over 50. Hope you didn't want kids, or that you're prepared to disrupt their schooling as you throw yourself around the world (or the country) in search of your next job. If you don't want to do that, you have to leave academia. This is how tech siphons off ever more of the best and brightest - they may get to do original research, but it's in service to Google. We used to be able to offer good pensions, but the pension provision is being hollowed out, and our contributions are going up, That latter negates our pay rise for the year.

Pay rises. Yes. We've had 10 years of below inflation pay rises, resulting in about a 20% loss in real earnings. This year's pay rise was 1.8%, which is 0.1% above one of the measures of inflation (but below others). It's way below the increase in e.g. rail fares or housing costs. I'll note that this hits hardest on assistant staff who aren't covered by UCU - I think that's wrong, but pay rises won by those of us on higher salary points will translate into raises for the lowest paid, because of fairness (well, because some of us believe in fairness, and management are averse to the kind of bad publicity that will result).

My grant-funded full time position is actually one of the better outcomes. Lots of people are employed to teach at 0.25FTE. They have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. They often don't get paid across the summer (no students). In Cambridge, most of those people are employed by the colleges. Some are PhD students and Postdocs getting experience and a little extra cash at the same time. Some are basically peripatetic teachers. In Cambridge, these people mostly aren't covered by the strikes, because they're employed by the colleges. Well, not employed as such. They're technically running their own small business, and the college is not their employer. Locally, we can work to get them taken on by departments as Affiliated Lecturers, so they can have more security, sick pay, and a pension. Nationally, we can work towards getting people longer-term and more substantial contracts. There are definitely lots of students available, and they'll definitely need teaching. We can't use an AI to teach them, so we should make sure that the people teaching them are able to do so to the best of their ability, not desperately stressed because they have to reapply for their current job in 6 months. Or desperately stressed because they have to put in extra hours to do the job properly, so they're actually averaging less than minimum wage.

This brings us to workload and conditions. A colleague of mine is seriously considering not applying for a lectureship, because all the lecturers they know are desperately overworked, and have very little time for research, especially at first. Even at the level of researchers, most people are seriously overworked, because there's not enough time to do good research, write the papers, do outreach or serve on committees or serve as conference organisers or do lots of peer review and so on - all of which are needed to try to apply for more secure jobs. And the example set by most of the people above you is that you do long hours, otherwise you can't get the job done. That's a terrible message for everyone, and this goes double for disabled people and people with caring responsibilities (still disproportionately women).

And there's the gender pay gap. Cambridge recently published its annual report. My grade is fairly evenly balanced. It's basically the bottom grade on the academic/academic-related track. Below me, there are more women than men; this is mostly admin grades. Above me, there are steadily fewer and fewer women. It's probably better not to ask about the pay differentials for BAME and disabled staff. It's probably grim reading, if only because the declared number of people in each category is exceedingly small and gets smaller as you go up the hierarchy.

So we're on strike, to try to get the Universities to commit to safeguarding our pensions, to help improve national pay scales, to get universities to commit to real action on pay inequalities, to move to more secure contracts, and to do something real about managing workloads. Platitudes are not enough. Pilates is not enough (though please don't cut it!)

It's not a case of our diamond shoes being too tight. I'm doing sort of OK, but I'm doing this for my colleagues who are effectively getting less than minimum wage. And I definitely support underpaid and overworked members of other industries to go out on strike. Please do pay your paramedics and your teachers more. Please do raise the minimum wage. The government can maybe support small businesses and the NHS to do this by e.g. taxing Amazon and Google and Facebook properly. There's a lot of money out there. Perhaps we can reroute it to people who are stuck in the gig economy.

Academia isn't the ideal ivory tower that most people imagine. It's full of a few people who have secure jobs and high salaries (though most of those at the professorial level are shockingly overworked), slightly more people who have secure jobs and good salaries, and a lot of people who have insecure jobs and OK salaries, and some others who have insecure jobs and poor salaries. If we want to keep academia as a place where people can learn things, and research things that can change how we look at things or how we do things, we need to improve pay, pensions and conditions.

Profile

vla22: photo of Atli's throne, Torcello, Venice (Default)
Verity Allan

September 2021

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829 30  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 12th, 2025 09:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios