Part 15 (1/2)

The voluntary unions appoint committees for the security of cla.s.s interests, and especially for the purpose of making agreements as to conditions of work. The election of these representative bodies ought to be made by both cla.s.ses with unrestricted equal eligibility of all, including the female, members of any union, and without predominance of one cla.s.s over the other, or of any section of one cla.s.s.

I have already in a former article (see also above, Chap. V.) laid great stress upon the development of this voluntary or conciliatory representation of both cla.s.ses as a means of union which can never be replaced by the other or legal form of representation.

The need for a representative system in the organs of the different forms of state-aid to labour is quite another matter.

Their tasks require special, public, legalised representation, with essentially only the right of deliberation; but they may also decide by a majority of votes questions which lie within the sphere of their competence.

As regards this public representation, it seems to me that joint appointment by direct choice of all the individuals in both cla.s.ses, and out of either cla.s.s, tends to the preservation of cla.s.s enmity rather than to the mutual conciliation of the two cla.s.ses and to the promotion of their wholesome joint influence on the boards. This kind of appointment might be dispensed with by limiting direct election as far as possible to the appointment of the elementary organs of representation; but for the rest by drawing the already existing authorities of a corporate kind into the formation of the system of general representation. Herein I refer to such already existing organs as those of labour insurance, Chambers of Commerce and Industrial guilds, railway boards, local and parliamentary representatives; and other elementary forms of corporate action might also be pressed into the service. A thoroughly serviceable, fully accredited _personnel_ would thus be secured for all Labour Boards.

This system might even be applied to the election or appointment by lot of the Industrial Court of Arbitration. If the Labour Chambers were corporate bodies really representative of the trade, then the Industrial Courts of Arbitration, both provincial and local, might be const.i.tuted as thoroughly trustworthy public organs--without great expense, free from judicial interference, competent as courts of the first and second instance, and not in any way dependent on the communal authorities--either freely elected by the managers of the workmen's clubs and the employers' boards or companies, or chosen by lot from the _personnel_ of the already existing corporate inst.i.tutions above referred to. The system of direct election by the votes of all the individual workers and employers would thus be avoided, and, more important still, this method would meet the difficulty which proved the crux of the whole question when the organisation of Industrial Courts of Arbitration was discussed in the last Reichstag: the distinction between young persons and adults would not enter into consideration, either in the case of Labour Chambers or of the Courts of Arbitration proceeding therefrom.

There would be no need, under this system, that electors of either cla.s.s should be required to limit their choice of representatives to members of their own cla.s.s. Each body of electors would be free to fix their choice on the men who possessed their confidence, wherever such might be found. This would further help to stamp out the antagonisms which are excited by the separate corporate representation of both cla.s.ses. Men would be appointed who would need no special protection against dismissal. But the representatives of the workers when chosen out of the midst of the working electorate might still receive daily pay and defrayment of travelling expenses. If this were entered to the account of the unions which direct the election through members of the managing committee, and if charged _pro rata_ of the electors appointed, a sufficient safeguard would be provided against the temptation to protract the sessions or to bribe professional electors.

The foregoing sketch of the executive and representative development of the organisation of Labour Protection in the direction of united, simple, uniform, specialized organisation of the whole aggregate of aids to labour, ought at least to deserve some attention.

Provided that the upward progress of our civilisation continues generally, this quite modern, hitherto unheard of, development of boards and representative bodies, even if only brought about piecemeal, will eventually be brought to completion, and will effect appreciable results in the State and in society. Some of the best forms of special boards, _i.e._ special representative bodies are already making their appearance, _e.g._ the ”Labour Secretariats” in Switzerland, the American ”Boards of Labour,” and the Russian ”Factory Courts” under the governments of St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Vladimir (Act of June 23, 1868).

CHAPTER XIII.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR PROTECTION.

Years and years elapsed before the first supporters of international protection received any recognition. Then immediately before the a.s.sembling of the Berlin Conference, the idea began to take an enormous hold on the public mind. Switzerland demanded a conference on the subject. Prince Bismark refused it. The Emperor William II. made an attempt towards it by summoning an international convention to discuss questions of Labour Protection.

The inner springs of the movement for international Labour Protection are not, and have not been, the same everywhere.

With some it is motived by the desire to secure for wage labour in all ”Christian” States conditions compatible with human dignity and self-respect. This was the basis of the Pope's negotiations with the labour parties and with certain of the more high-minded sovereigns and princes. Others demand it in the combined interests of international equilibrium of compet.i.tion and of Labour Protection, believing that these two may be brought into harmony by the international process, since if industry were equally weighted everywhere, and the costs of production, therefore, approximately the same everywhere, protected nations would not suffer in the world's markets. The first, the more ”idealist” motive prevails most strongly among Catholics, and contains no doubt a deeper motive--namely, the preservation of the social influence of the Church. At the International Catholic Economic Congress at Suttich, in September, 1890, this view prevailed, with the support of the English and Germans, against the opposition of the Belgians and French.

The light in which international Labour Protection is viewed depends upon whether the one or the other motive prevails, or whether both are working together.

Two results are possible. Either limits will be set to the right of restricting protection of employment and protection in occupation by means of universal international legislation, or the interchange of moral influence between the various governments will be brought about by means of periodical Labour Protection Conferences and through the Press, which on the one hand would promote this interchange of influence, and on the other hand would, uniformly for all nations, demand and encourage the popular support of all protective efforts outside the limits of the State.

Before the Berlin Conference it was by no means clear what was expected of international Labour Protection. Since the Conference it has been perfectly clear, and this alone is an important result.

The international settlement which Prince Bismark had opposed ten years before did not meet with even timid support at the Berlin Conference.

England and France were the strongest opponents of the idea of the control of international protective legislation. This can be proved from the reports of the Berlin Conference.

The representative of Switzerland, H. Blumer, in the session of March 26, 1890, made a proposal, which was drawn up as follows:--

”Measures should be taken in view of carrying out the provisions adopted by the Conference.

”It may be foreseen on this point that the States which have arrived at an agreement on certain measures, will conclude an obligatory arrangement; that the carrying out of such arrangement will take place by national legislation, and that if this legislation is not sufficient it will have to receive the necessary additions.

”It is also safe to predict the creation of a special organ for centralizing the information furnished, for the regular publication of statistical returns, and the execution of preparatory measures for the conferences antic.i.p.ated in paragraph 2 of the programme.

”Periodical conferences of delegates of the different governments may be antic.i.p.ated. The princ.i.p.al task of these conferences will be to develop the arrangements agreed on and to solve the questions giving rise to difficulty or opposition.”

Immediately upon the opening of the discussion on this motion, the delegates from Great Britain moved the rejection of the proposal of Switzerland, ”since, in their opinion, an International Convention on this matter could not supply the place of special legislation in any one country. The United Kingdom had only consented to take part in the Conference on the understanding that no such idea should be entertained.