Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:38:45.853Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare Legislation and the Unions during the First World War1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Noelle Whiteside
Noelle Whiteside
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first World War ended very suddenly. Large numbers of civilian workers lost their jobs in the period of industrial dislocation that followed, adding to the numbers of unemployed already swollen by the return of demobilized soldiers from the continent. No plans existed, however, to provide for the civilian unemployed. A last-minute decision was made in November 1918 to extend free out-of-work donation to them as well as to those newly released from the army. Although this scheme proved inordinately expensive it did provide the cabinet with a much needed breathing-space. In the event, however, general policy on how to cater for the unemployed was not tackled again for many months.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 1980 , pp. 857 - 874
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 British social policy, 1914–1919 (1970), pp. 55–61.

3 William Beveridge (1979), pp. 255–257.

4 Beveridge, W., ‘Unemployment insurance in the war and after’, in Shotwell, J. T. (ed.), War and insurance (1927)Google Scholar, Carnegie Endowment Series 232.

5 Dr Harris's account is far more precise about how this affected the government departments concerned.

6 Gilbert, , British social policy, p. 55Google Scholar.

7 See Hinton, J., The first shop stewards movement (1973)Google Scholar.

8 National Insurance Act (Part II), s. 105 and s. 106.

9 Both the Gasworkers and the Workers Union took advantage of these provisions and initiated new schemes. See ‘report by the parliamentary committee of a deputation sent to the Board of Trade 16 March 1916’ in T.U.C. annual report for 1916, pp. 88–92.

10 See Report of the committee on audit of unemployment benefit, Cd.8412/1916, p. 4. Copy on file Ti/12029/2789/17, Public Record Office (hereafter PRO).

11 Memorandum by Davey on the administration of s. 106. July 1917). On file PIN 7/11 PRO.

12 Correspondence between officials of the two departments over this matter is on file TI/12029/2789/17.

13 A compromise solution was reached; compensation was reduced from one-sixth to one-twelfth union expenditure on benefit. See report of TUC parliamentary committee cited in note 9 above.

14 Discussion on the problems involved appears on file LAB2/1488/LE1698 and subfiles /4, /5, and /7 PRO.

15 Dated 15 May 1916; on file TI/12093/38192/1917 PRO.

16 These industries were the manufacture of ammunition and explosives, chemicals, metal, leather, rubber, building materials and wooden cases. In these trades, it was considered a large proportion of the workforce was already on war work. See Beveridge papers: collection on munitions, s. VI, item 15: British Library of Political and Economic Science (hereafter BLPES).

17 ‘For practical purposes, the act made possible the extension of unemployment insurance to nearly every industry in the United Kingdom for no enterprise was without some war work’: Gilbert, B. B., British social policy, p. 55Google Scholar. See also Beveridge's memorandum on unscheduled trades, 23 August 1916: Beveridge papers: collection on munitions; section VI, item 16, BLPES.

18 On file TI/12093/38192/1917 PRO.

19 A compromise was reached between Treasury and Board of Trade on 20 June 1916: correspondence on file T1/12093/38192/1917, PRO.

20 Memorandum, ‘Further protests against inclusion under unemployment insurance’ (not dated), on file PIN 7/8, PRO.

21 Ibid.

22 ‘Table of trades covered by Unemployment Insurance Act 1916’ (Feb. 1917) on file T1/12093/38192/1917. See also draft report of Civil War Workers Committee subcommittee on insurance (chairman: W. Beveridge), (Jan. 1918): on file PIN 7/12, PRO.

23 Report of debate in TUC annual report for 1916, pp. 337–344.

24 Copy on file TI/12093/38192/1917, PRO.

25 See table referred to in note 22, above.

26 Correspondence on file PIN 7/8, PRO.

27 See speech by Richards, , the president of Boot and Shoe Operatives, to TUC: TUC annual report 1916, p. 343Google Scholar.

28 Memorandum, Beveridge, W., ‘Opposition to munition workers' insurance’ (8 09 1916)Google Scholar, sent to Llewellyn Smith and Pretyman. These figures did not cover the scheduled trades: the boot and shoe trade is excluded. On file LAB2/1488/LE 45681/4, PRO.

29 Protests from industries are summarized in a memorandum on file PIN 7/6, PRO.

30 The union is referred to hereafter, by its initials, NUBSO. The NUBSO scheme gave its members 10s. benefit for up to 10 weeks at the contributory rate of 1d. per week. The national scheme gave 7s. benefit for up to 15 weeks at a contributory rate of 2½d. per week – and a waiting period of up to 6 days before benefit could be claimed. See correspondence between Poulton (general secretary of NUBSO) and the Board of Trade; also memorandum by Beveridge, ‘Unemployment insurance in the boot and shoe trade’ – both on file LAB2/1491/LE46581, PRO. Also Shoe and leather News, 17 August 1916, pp. 665–6.

31 Minute Beveridge to Phillips, 31 August 1916, on LAB2/1488/LE46581/4, PRO. Of 146,000 working in the industry, 66,165 were members of NUBSO or the National Union of Boot and Shoe Women Workers. See memorandum on file PIN 7/8, PRO.

32 Theoretically the Board could implement the act by instructing employers to deduct contributions at source. Regional reports in the NUBSO Monthly Report for August, September and October 1916 show that the union's instruction was fully obeyed.

33 See TUC annual report 1916, op. cit. and NUBSO Monthly Report, Sept. 1916.

34 Correspondence 10–13 September 1916 on file LAB2/1488/LE46581/4, PRO.

35 Minutes and memoranda on file, op. cit., and LAB2/1491/LE46581, PRO. In a letter to I McKinnon Wood dated 3rd October, Pretyman stated that Henderson had advised the Board that its position was hopeless and that this had marked the end of official resistance: on file T1/12893/38112/1917, PRO.

36 The Board offered to repay contributions, after a certain period, to trades whose claim on the Fund had been low. (‘The Fund becomes a Savings Bank’ commented the NUBSO journal.) The proposal was rejected. See Beveridge's memorandum op. cit., on file LAB2/1491/LE46581, PRO.

37 Minute 31 August 1916, on file LAB2/1488/LE4658I/4, PRO.

38 The cotton industry habitually used systematic short time to cater for problems of unemployment.

39 See Hurwitz, S. J., State intervention in Britain (1968), pp. 200–1Google Scholar.

40 TUC annual report for 1916, p. 89.

41 Ibid. p. 343.

42 NUBSO Monthly report, 09 1916, p. 558Google Scholar.

43 See Treasury memorandum 12 March 1917, on file T1/12093/38192/1917, PRO.

44 Report by A. Watson on the report of the Civil War Workers' Committee (14 May 1918), p. 7. On file PIN 7/21, PRO.

45 See correspondence between Treasury and ministry of labour officials in the summer of 1917: on file T1/12093/38192/1917, PRO.

46 Ibid. response by the Treasury to Rey's letter of 20 April 1917.

47 Ibid. minute by Leith Ross, 22 June 1917.

48 Ibid. for a copy of the cabinet paper GT1429.

49 This was the Unemployment Insurance Subcommittee of the Civil War Workers Committee chaired by Beveridge; its draft report is referred to in note 22 above.

50 Minute, 18 Jan. 1918, on file PIN 7/12, PRO.

51 Ibid. Phillips memorandum, 17 Jan. 1918.

52 Ibid. Hawkins memorandum, 15 Jan. 1918.

53 See Labour Resettlement Committee: Report of the unemployment insurance sub-committee 9 October 1918: copy on file T1/12594/23571, PRO.

54 See minute from Phillips to Shackleton, 12 November 1918, on file PIN 7/13, PRO.

56 Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, s. 18.

57 Negotiations started between NUBSO and their employers in March 1920, with a view to enabling their industry to ‘contract out’ of the main act and to provide an insurance scheme specifically designed to ‘make up’ wages of those on short time. The initiative failed, partly because of opposition from employers, partly because of the strict regulations the unions had to meet to win official approval. See file LAB2/678/EDC 2854/1920, PRO.

57 Harris, Jose, Beveridge, p. 229Google Scholar.

58 Report of the committee of enquiry into the work of employment exchanges, Cmd 1054/31920 paragraph 95 (7): copy of report on file, LAB2/1067/ED14604/1923.

59 Minutes, memoranda and correspondence on file LAB2/1062/ED27520/1919, PRO.

60 See Lowe, R., ‘The demand for a ministry of labour, its establishment and initial role’, unpublished Ph.D. (LSE) (1975), pp. 39–41Google Scholar.

61 TUC annual report for 1916, p. 337.

62 Ibid. pp. 89–90 for Pretyman's comments to the TUC parliamentary committee concerning the suspension of s. 106.

63 Paterson minute, 17 Dec. 1919, on file LAB2/1067/ED27520/1919, PRO.

64 Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, s. 17.