(1) Shall we accept the employers' terms?
(2) Or shall the strike continue and a levy of 1d. per member per week be made to enable the men to be paid without further loss to the Union?
Before the question was put I pointed out to the committee that I had received the result of the second ballot, and I did not see how they could ignore that, for it would be an insult to the members, which I was sure they would deeply resent, and further, how could they accept such terms as the employers offered, when not only were the employers exacting their own terms, but they were not willing to take back more than 40 per cent. of their men? Such a settlement was unheard of in the history of Trades Unionism.
In spite of this the question was put, and there voted for the amendment Messrs. H. A. Day, W. Codling, M. Berry and myself.
For the resolution Messrs. G. Nicholls, R. Winfrey, J. Arnett, T. Giles, A. P. Petch and J. Stibbons. The resolution was carried and I was instructed to take steps to carry this out. I then gave the result of the second ballot:—
| For continuing the strike | 1,102 |
| Against continuing the strike | 1,053 |
| ——— | |
| Majority for standing out | 49 |
Thus the strike that had lasted nearly eight months was brought to a close, not because the funds of the Union were exhausted, but because the majority of the committee honestly believed that it was to the interest of the men and the Union that it should be closed.
I and those of the committee who were in the minority thought it was a grave mistake, and I think so to-day.
The troubles of the Union, however, were only just beginning.
Mr. Day wrote to the press condemning the action of the committee and publicly advised the members to take the matter into their own hands by demanding a General Council Meeting as per Rule 3, Section 3. This brought to me scores of telegrams and letters demanding that I should call a General Meeting to undo what the Executive had done. Of the many letters I received the following is a specimen, and shows the feeling that existed amongst the members on the whole matter:—
Kenninghall,
January 6, 1911.Dear Mr. Edwards,
I have read in the press with deep regret of the way in which the committee have stopped the St. Faith's strike. If it is true that the farmers at St. Faith's have said, and I have it from good authority, that they were prepared to give the 1s. per week, but did not like giving the three hours on the Saturday, in the face of this how is it they were willing to send the men back without even asking for the 1s. or even a promise that it should be given on a certain date or when the men could work the full hours? And, further, they are sending the men back against the express wish of the whole Union. I certainly thought the funds of the Union belonged to the members and that they had power to say how their money should be spent and not the E.C.
I strongly protest against the last two committee meetings being called at all. The first one was called before the second ballot had come in and when it was in the hands of the members to decide. The second one was called after the members had decided how their money was to be spent and the committee went and reversed what the members had decided. I say emphatically the Union never ought to have been saddled with the expense of either of these two. The expense ought to have fallen on those who called the E.C. together. No doubt we shall hear at the General Council that we ought to cut down expenses. I can see no reason, if half a dozen men can spend our money in that fashion, why we should not call a General Council to deal with the whole question as far as our members are concerned. They strongly protest against the entire action of the Executive in regard to the St. Faith's strike.
Yours truly,
(Signed) J. Sage.