Search

This article responds to comments made by three commentators on the book "Labour Revolt in Britain 1910–14." The first commentator discusses the pragmatic approach of the Liberal government in resolving industrial relations issues, which the author agrees with and attributes to the growing strike momentum and the need for an industrial relations policy. The second commentator highlights the gender segregation in the labor market and labor movement during this period, and the author acknowledges the limitations in their exploration of this aspect but argues against diminishing the positive aspects of women's strikes and the support they received from men. The article provides insights into the government's response to labor unrest and the role of women in the labor revolt, discussing their unique characteristics in resistance, their involvement in strike committees, and their adoption of suffrage tactics. It also explores the relationship between the labor and suffrage movements, the role of the Independent Labour Party and syndicalism, and the negligible influence of anarchism in the syndicalist movement in Britain. [Extracted from the article]

Over the last 200 years of British labour history there have been frequent examples of aggressive and sometimes violent mass picketing aimed at stopping non-striking scab or so-called 'blackleg' labour [sic]. Yet remarkably little detailed attention has been given within the field of British industrial relations or even labour history to the contributory causes, characteristic features, impact and broader implications of this violent dimension of the strikers/scabs relationship within industrial militancy. This paper attempts to fill the gap, focusing on one of the most intense and graphic illustrative time periods, the pre-First World War Labour Revolt between 1910-14. Drawing on an extensive range of secondary literature and new archival material, it explores the way in which working class violence as a form of active collective defence became justified by the way in which it was directly provoked by the employers' encouragement and/or importation of scab labour, combined with the partisan intervention of police, troops, civil authorities and government as a means of attempting to defeat workers' struggles. In challenging the legitimacy of public order and state power, such action encouraged a culture of community solidarity and self-defence that embraced many local supporters in the mass picketing against 'blacklegs'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the years immediately preceding the First World War Britain experienced mass social unrest on a scale not seen since the early nineteenth century. Despite their distinctive priorities of gender and class, respectively, both the women's suffrage revolt for the vote (embracing suffragettes and suffragists) and the labour unrest of 1910–14 (involving strikes in pursuit of higher wages, better working conditions and trade union recognition) utilised dramatic extra-parliamentary 'direct action' forms of militant struggle from below that represented a formidable challenge to the existing social and political order of Edwardian Britain. Although the two militant movements effectively co-existed side-by-side on parallel tracks, with a huge and frustrating gulf between them, there were nonetheless some very important linkages between the struggles of women and labour that have often been missed, ignored or downplayed by feminist and labour historians alike. This article re-examines the historical record to deploy both new and previously utilised evidence to foreground neglected aspects of the subject, reveal fresh factual insights, and provide a more detailed than hitherto available assessment of the cross-fertilisation that existed between the women's and labour movements and for the broader linking of class and gender issues, even if these were not always fully recognised, pursued or developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically the British Trades Union Congress's (TUC) role in a significant number of major industrial disputes has been subject to both accusations of 'betrayals' and 'sell-outs' as well as more sympathetic accounts which emphasise the constraints faced by the TUC both in terms of their institutional role and their relationship with constituent unions. Drawing on evidence concerning the role of the TUC in significant disputes including the 1926 General Strike, the strike wave of 1972, 1975–8 Grunwick dispute, the 1978/9 'winter of discontent', the 1984/5 miners' strike, the 1986–7 News International strike and more recent examples, the paper highlights four constraints on the role of the TUC in relation to major disputes: their political loyalty to the Labour Party; an aversion to defying the law; the avoidance of appearing to challenge state power; and structural constraints to an extent inherent within trade union officialdom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While most accounts of the Dublin Lockout of 1913–1914 consider it primarily as an event in Irish history, it was also one of the most important struggles in twentieth-century British history. It was influenced by, and was an integral part of the great ‘labour unrest’ that swept over Britain in the years 1911–1914 and had tremendous repercussions in Britain as well as Ireland. This article provides much neglected analysis of the nature, extent and dynamics of the solidarity campaign that was generated on the British mainland for the Lockout (probably the only other comparable event was the national miners’ strike of 1984–1985), the reasons why such widespread support was forthcoming and its broader implications for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of militant trade unionism in Britain during this period. It provides a comprehensive re-examination of the historical record and offers a critical analysis of existing predominant historiographical interpretations of the dispute. In the process, the article provides new insights into the potential and limits of Jim Larkin’s campaign to secure sympathetic industrial action inside the British labour movement, the refusal of the Trades Union Congress to support such an initiative and the inability of rank-and-file and socialist militants to overcome the entrenched resistance of the official union leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, a small number of the so-called ‘counterfactual’ or ‘what-if’ historical books, which ask us to imagine what would have happened if events in the past had turned out differently than they did, have been published. They have stimulated an important, albeit not entirely new, methodological debate about issues and questions which are (or should be) of central relevance to the work of labor historians, and which such labor historians need to engage with and contribute towards. This brief discussion article attempts to do this by presenting one particular Marxist viewpoint, with the hope and expectation that others (hopefully supportive but possibly critical of the argument presented here) will follow. In the process, it examines the past use (and abuse) of the counterfactual within historical analysis, presents an argument for the validity of a refined and renamed ‘alterfactual’ approach and examines the use of such an alterfactual approach to the British miners' strike of 1984–1985. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Gerald Friedman'sReigniting the Labor Movementwas a highly ambitious, unashamedly partisan, historical and transnational comparative analysis of the rise and demise of the labour movement, which identified the way in which rank-and-file workers' spontaneous and innovative strike militancy represents an ‘incipient rebellion against the capitalist system’. In the process, the book made a compelling case for the restoration of past militant worker action as an essential means of ‘reigniting’ the contemporary labour movement. While I find myself in considerable sympathy and agreement with much of the overall analysis, there are distinct but related features of Friedman's thesis that are critically explored in this article. These concern the nature of the relationship between strike movements and union membership growth, and the process by which the unions that emerge from periods of radical labour unrest then seek to dampen down worker militancy in order to bargain with employers/state within the confines of capitalism. My reassessment of Friedman's analysis, framed specifically within the national context of the UK during the historical window of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (specifically 1889–1920), aims to illustrate what I regard as five of the main problematic features of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

It has been argued that support for the First World War by the important French syndicalist organisation, the Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT) has tended to obscure the fact that other national syndicalist organisations remained faithful to their professed workers’ internationalism: on this basis syndicalists beyond France, more than any other ideological persuasion within the organised trade union movement in immediate pre-war and wartime Europe, can be seen to have constituted an authentic movement of opposition to the war in their refusal to subordinate class interests to those of the state, to endorse policies of ‘defencism’ of the ‘national interest’ and to abandon the rhetoric of class conflict. This article, which attempts to contribute to a much-neglected comparative historiography of the international syndicalist movement, re-evaluates the syndicalist response across a broad geographical field of canvas (embracing France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Britain and America) to reveal a rather more nuanced, ambiguous and uneven picture. While it highlights the distinctive nature of the syndicalist response compared with other labour movement trends, it also explores the important strategic and tactical limitations involved, including the dilemma of attempting to translate formal syndicalist ideological commitments against the war into practical measures of intervention, and the consequences of the syndicalists’ subordination of the political question of the war to the industrial struggle. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article re-evaluates the so-called ‘agitator theory’ of strikes, the popular (often media-induced) notion that industrial militancy is the work of a few hard-core militant shop stewards and/or left-wing political ‘agitators.’ It suggests that while many industrial relations academics have traditionally refused to accept such a one-dimensional explanation for strikes, for example in relation to the Communist Party in the post-war years, many have generally gone too far and fallen into the alternative trap of neglecting the influence of politically influenced activists and shop stewards. Re-evaluating the agitator ‘theory’ by an equally critical consideration of six of the counter-arguments levelled in the past by its academic industrial relations opponents, the article provides evidence to suggest that, despite exaggeration and distortion, there is clearly an important element of truth in the thesis; agency in collective workplace mobilization, in particular the role of leadership by union militants and left-wing activists, can be an important (although by no means exclusive) variable in an understanding of the dynamics of workplace industrial action in both contemporary and historical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents letters to the editor referencing articles and topics discussed in previous issues. Request for information for a political biography of J. T. Murphy, the wartime shop stewards' leader; Appeal to readers for information relating to ILP activity in the 1940s.