From the year 1900 there has been an enormous increase in the price of coal, averaging nearly 6/- per ton. This would have in itself automatically secured for us 60% on the standard, whereas we are only paid 50%. The argument may be used that our policy of minimum percentages has kept the price of coal up. This is sheer bunkum. Here are two reasons sufficient to dispel that illusion. The owners are more concerned to sell all their coal than to get exceptional prices for some of it. To put it in a glaring way, if they can sell 20 tons at 15/- per ton, and only 10 tons at 20/- per ton, they will prefer to sell the 20 tons at 15/-, because it puts more money in their pockets, and they will be called upon to pay less out in wages. The second reason which also amplifies the first, is that competition, and not the sweet will of the owners, fixes the price of coal. If it were not for this fact the owners would be foolish to wait for our minimum percentages before increasing the price of their coal, and so putting huge profits in their pockets. They love profits too well to wait for us to compel them to accept them. No! No! they charge the highest penny that American and German competition will allow them. If they put a higher price on their coal to-morrow they will sell less than today. This is surely quite obvious. The price of coal has increased from the same cause that has increased all other goods, namely the cheapening of gold through richer yields and labour saving appliances. Dismissing then the illusion that our policy has kept up prices, how are to account for the 10% reduction we have suffered? By the facts, and here they are. When Sir David Dale gave his award in 1902, he increased the price which was the equivalent of 30% (under the Sliding Scale) from 11/3 to 11/10. A direct reduction of over 5% in all our standard rates. There goes one Chunk. When the last agreement (1910) was arrived at we allowed 9d. per ton over 14/- to be free from percentages. There goes another 6% (?) reduction. These are facts. It is a fact (from reasons we have already explained) that the price of coal has never gone down to 11s. 10d. since the great (?) principle of minimum percentage was established. Thus, while we were clapping our hands in enthusiastic joy over the securing of a great principle the employers were quietly pocketing the 5% proceeds. This is a distinct feature of our recent reductions. The other serious reduction was granted on grounds, that if logically carried out, would mean the final end of progress, and the commencement of a battledore and shuttlecock game, of changing the persons to whom we were paying our reductions. The owners said that the cost of legislative reforms had increased the cost of production. So we relieved them to the extent of 9d. on the ton after 14/-, i.e. 6%. This means that if we get any improvements, we must pay for them. We can go on like this for centuries securing great principles and legislative reforms, while all the time our pockets grow emptier. This is a fiendish principle that no sane man can countenance. Yet these are facts. That is one part of our indictment against the policy of conciliation.

Space prevents us from going into exhaustive detail as to the "tying up" and " delay" character of conciliation. But they are so well known, that it is superfluous really to detail them. We shall briefly summarize our objections. First the process.

DELAY

A dispute occurs in a colliery. The ordinary lodge negotiations are carried on, resulting in failure. The Agent is called in. Still failure. The matter is sent to the Executive and finally the Board. Here it takes its place with other matters on the agenda. In the course of time, after some months of waiting, it is reached and brought up for discussion. It is then referred to a sub-committee. These take time to see the management, and the colliery. Then they negotiate. Sometimes, as in the case of Rhymney, they negotiate for two years. Even then the owner's side refuse to report failure to agree. Eventually this may be done. Then, and then only, the colliery may give a month's notice. Need we say anything more in condemnation of this? We think not.

BASIS OF CONSIDERATION

On the Board all things have to be considered from the employers' standpoint. They alone have the inside information. We don't audit their books, and we have no means of judging the truth of their assertions. They say the colliery won't pay. We must accept their word. When we are considering principles, they have only to show that some wretched little colliery employing 10 men will have to close if we insist on our demands. That silences us. The little colliery belongs to a method of production that is almost a century old. Yet we must allow their conditions to govern us. Reason in such a case means, in plain English: the Employers' interest and outlook. After 10 years of such a game, we find our customs broken down, and our price lists a farce, and in the face of a very serious rise in the cost of living (which many of us have nick-named prosperity) we have been reduced 10% in the standard rates. Is this enough?

CONCILIATION AND LEADERS

Here is perhaps after all our strongest indictment. The policy of "collective bargaining" will be dealt with later on. But we have here to point out why there is discontent with "leaders." The policy of conciliation gives the real power of the men into the hands of a few leaders. Somebody says "What about conferences and ballots"? Conferences are only called, and ballots only taken when there is a difference of opinion between leaders. The conference or ballot is only a referee. Can this be denied? In the main, and on things that matter, the Executive have the supreme power. The workmen for a time look up to these men and when things are going well they idolise them. The employers respect them. Why? Because they have the men - the real power - in the hollow of their hands. They, the leaders, become "gentlemen," they become M.P.'s and have considerable social prestige because of this power. Now when any man or men assume power of this description, we have a right to ask them to be infallible. That is the penalty, a just one too, of autocracy. When things go wrong, and we have shown that they have gone wrong, they deserve to be, and are blamed. What really is blameworthy, is the conciliation policy which demands leaders of this description. For a moment let us look at this question from the leaders' standpoint. First, they are "trade unionists by trade" and their profession demands certain privileges. The greatest of all these are plenary powers. Now, every inroad the rank and file make on this privilege lessens the power and prestige of the leader. Can we wonder then that leaders are averse to change? Can we wonder that they try and prevent progress? Progress may arrive at such a point that they would not be able to retain their "jobs," or their "jobs" would become so unimportant that from their point of view, they would not be worth retaining. The leader then has an interest - a vested interest - in stopping progress. They have therefore in some things an antagonism of interests with the rank and file. The conditions of things in South Wales has reached the point when this difference of interest, this antagonism, has become manifest. Hence the men criticise and are discontented with their leaders. But the remedy is not new leaders. But - well, we shall see.

CHAPTER II

The year 1910 brought a seeming realization of this antagonism by the men. Throughout the negotiations for the new agreement, the men continuously insisted, more and more on having the controlling voice. Early on it was laid down that plenary powers should not be given to the leaders, but that the final acceptance of any agreement should depend upon the ballot vote of the men.

Thus an entirely new principle was established, which took away from the Leaders all responsibility for the terms of the agreement, and left only the responsibility for the conduct of the negotiations.

This, while representing an advance, is by no means a satisfactory solution. It places the men in the position of a crowd at a football match. The players, selected by the crowd have to outmanoeuvre their opponents, while the crowd either cheer or criticize their efforts. But of real control, save in the matter of selecting the players, the crowd have none.

This half-hearted establishment of the principle of direct control by the men found expression again towards the end of the year by the outbreak of the Cambrian and Aberdare disputes. A careful and dispassionate survey of these historic struggles, will show that at every stage, the interference of Leaders prejudiced the case of the men, and also helped to tie their hands in their endeavour to settle the disputes themselves.

To the Leaders, everything seemed to be in the melting pot, because the men insisted on taking a hand in the conduct of affairs. There was much vain talk on the Leaders' side about "the growing spirit of anarchy" which was bringing "chaos" into the coalfield. And on the men's side, a growing distrust of leadership and a determination to gain more control.


We had reached the half-way house between two methods of administration, each of which negatived and stultified the other. To-day we begin to realize that it is impossible to combine the two methods; and signs are not wanting to show that if measures are not taken to crystalize the new spirit, to give it proper methods in which to function, we shall drift back to the old methods of autocracy.

It becomes necessary then to devise means which will enable this new spirit of real democratic control to manifest itself. Which will not only enable the men, but which will encourage, nay compel them, to take the supreme control of their own organisation.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OLD AND NEW

So long as the system of working for wages endures, collective bargaining remains essential. From the men's side we cannot permit individual bargains to be made. Such individual bargains have a tendency to debase wages and conditions. On the employers' side there is no great desire for change in this matter. As will be seen by recent speeches by Mr. D. A. Thomas and Lord Merthyr, they realize its value, in its present form, to them. They have no time to bother with individuals, but prefer to purchase their labour power in bulk, on an agreed schedule. On the men's side, however, it is being realized, that collective bargaining can be made so wide reaching and all embracing, that it includes the whole of the working class. In this form the employers and the old school of labour leaders have no love for it. The employers, because they realize its dangers to their profits. The labour leaders, because it will degrade their power and influence by necessitating a much more stringent and effective democratic control than at present obtains. Let us, in order to clearly realize this, examine at close quarters the labour leader and his functions.

ARE LEADERS GOOD AND NECESSARY?

This is not a double question, since if leaders are necessary, they [are] perforce good. Let us then examine the leader, and see if he is necessary. A leader implies at the outset some men who are being led; and the term is used to describe a man who, in a representative capacity, has acquired combined administrative and legislative power. As such, he sees no need for any high level of intelligence in the rank and file, except to applaud his actions. Indeed such intelligence from his point of view, by breeding criticism and opposition, is an obstacle and causes confusion. His motto is, "Men, be loyal to your leaders." H[i]s logical basis: Plenary powers. His social and economic prestige, is dependent upon his being respected by "the public" and the employers. These are the three principles which form the platform upon which the leader stands. He presents, in common with other institutions, a good and a bad aspect.

THE GOOD SIDE OF LEADERSHIP

Leadership tends to efficiency

One decided man, who knows his own mind is stronger than a hesitating crowd. It takes time for a number of people to agree upon a given policy. One man soon makes up his mind.

He takes all responsibility

As a responsible leader, he knows that his advice is almost equivalent to a command, and this ensures that his advice will have been carefully and gravely considered before being tendered.

He stands for Order and System

All too frequently, "What is everybody's business is nobody's business," and if no one stands in a position to ensure order and system, many things are omitted which will cause the men's interest to suffer.

He affords a standard of goodness and ability

In the sphere of public usefulness there is a great field of emulation. The good wishes of the masses can only be obtained by new aspirants for office showing a higher status of ability than the then existing leaders. This tends to his continued efficiency or elimination.

His faithfulness and honesty are guarded

Hero worship has great attractions for the hero, and a leader has great inducements on this side, apart from pecuniary considerations to remain faithful and honest.

THE BAD SIDE OF LEADERSHIP

Leadership implies power

Leadership implies power held by the Leader. Without power the leader is inept. The possession of power inevitably leads to corruption. All leaders become corrupt, in spite of their own good intentions. No man was ever good enough, brave enough, or strong enough, to have such power at his disposal, as real leadership implies.

Consider what it means

This power of initiative, this sense of responsibility, the self respect which comes from expressed manhood, is taken from the men, and consolidated in the leader. The sum of their initiative, their responsibility, their self respect becomes his.

The order and system

The order and system he maintains, is based upon the suppression of the men, from being independent thinkers into being "the men" or "the mob." Every argument which could be advanced to justify leadership on this score, would apply equally well to the Czar of all the Russias and his policy of repression. In order to be effective, the leader must keep the men in order, or he forfeits the respect of the employers and "the public," and thus becomes ineffective as a leader.

He corrupts the aspirants to public usefulness

He is compelled in order to maintain his power, to see to it that only those, who are willing to act as his drill sergeants or coercive agents shall enjoy his patronage. In a word, he is compelled to become an autocrat and a foe to democracy.

He prevents solidarity

Sheep cannot be said to have solidarity. In obedience to a shepherd, they will go up or down, backwards or forwards as they are driven by him and his dogs. But they have no solidarity, for that means unity and loyalty. Unity and loyalty, not to an individual, or the policy of an individual, but to an interest and a policy which is understood and worked by all.

Finally he prevents the legislative power of the workers.

An industrial vote will affect the lives and happiness of workmen far more than a political vote. The power to vote whether there shall or shall not be a strike, or upon an industrial policy to be pursued by his union, will affect far more important issues to the workman's life, than the political vote can ever touch. Hence it should be more sought after, and its privileges jealously guarded. Think of the tremendous power going to waste because of leadership, of the inevitable stop-block he becomes on progress, because quite naturally, leaders examine every new proposal, and ask first how it will affect their position and power. It prevents large and comprehensive policies being initiated and carried out, which depend upon the understanding and watchfulness of the great majority. National strikes and policies, can only be carried out, when the bulk of the people see their necessity, and themselves prepare and arrange them.

CHAPTER III

WORKMEN THE "BOSSES," "LEADERS" THE SERVANTS

Is it possible to devise such an organization as will bring the above from the realm of the ideal to the realm of practicability? Those responsible for this pamphlet, men who, residing in all parts of South Wales, have given their time and thought to this problem, answer confidently in the affirmative. In these chapters they present their scheme, believing it to be not only possible, but the only practicable form of organization for us to achieve. It is divided into four parts, each of which depends upon the other. They are, the Preamble, which summarizes the needs and indicates the requirements of such an organization. The Programme, which states the objective - immediate and ultimate. The Constitution, which gives the framework in which the real worker's organization shall move, and the policy which illustrates the spirit and tactics of that organization. A careful reading of this chapter will place our scheme squarely and simply before you. Bear in mind when reading and discussing it, the faults and failures of the old form of organization, the abortiveness of all up to the present suggested improvements; and endeavour to realize, as we have done, that a complete alteration in the structure and policy of the organization is imperative.

PREAMBLE TO MANIFESTO

The present deplorable condition of the South Wales Miners' Federation calls imperatively for a summary of the situation, in an endeavour to discover where we stand.

The rapidity of industrial development is forcing the Federation to take action along lines for which there exists no machinery to properly carry out.

The control of the organisation by the rank and file is far too indirect.

The system of long agreements, with their elaborate precautions against direct action, cramp the free expression of the might of the workmen and prevent the securing of improved conditions, often when the mere exhibition of their strength would allow of it.

The sectional character of the organisation in the mining industry renders concerted action almost impossible, and thus every section helps to hinder and often defeat the other. What then is necessary to remedy the present evils?