Victory!

On Friday, 2nd September 1910, only ten days after the start of the dispute, the attitude of the C.M.A. changed. They agreed to meet with the women’s representatives to work out a possible solution. The new tactics were motivated by four considerations. In the first place, the employers had seriously underestimated the support the women would receive from all classes of the public. Secondly, they had not reckoned with the determination of the women themselves to fight for the new rates. Thirdly, the C.M.A. was disturbed by the boycott being placed on their chains and, finally, they began to see the strike as an opportunity to remove middlemen from the trade.

The Government, in accordance with Trade Board legislation, refused to tender contracts with those firms not paying minimum rates. This was a strong bargaining weapon. Government contract work was the province of the larger factory owners, so they stood to lose greatly from such a boycott. Also Messrs. Opell and Owen, one of the largest chain buying firms in the private sector, followed a similar policy.

The C.M.A. realised, with the impending implementation of the minimum rates, it would be cheaper to dispense with the middlemen in the future, and deal directly with the chainmakers themselves. Some were considering erecting additional factories on land near to their present works, and have all their work people under their immediate control.

At the meeting held on 2nd September, despite the pressure put on them, the C.M.A. did not submit unconditionally. It agreed to pay minimum rates, but only if the National Federation of Women Workers (N.F.W.W.) guaranteed to support financially all those women who refused to work below the rate, for the duration of the strike. Essentially the C.M.A. was asking the Union to protect it against unfair competition from the non-associated masters and the middlemen. Members of the C.M.A signed a document, agreeing to pay the minimum rate, which was then forwarded to the Trade Board, for the firms names to be included on its register. This became known as the “White List.”

The fourth annual report of the N.F.W.W. later said of this pact, that it was “perhaps unique in the annals of Trade Unionism". The Social Democratic Federation’s “Justice” was more candid. The C.M.A, it declared, was urging the workers to strike, in order to bring all masters under one rule; an attempt by the bigger firms to crush the smaller ones. When agreeing to pay the Trade Board rates, the C.M.A also undertook to use its influence to induce employers outside the Association to do the same.

The subsequent decision of the N.F.W.W. to accept the C.M.A.’s offer was finally determined by the generosity of the public in subscribing to the women’s fund. Mary Macarthur had estimated that £1,000 was needed to support the strikers. By the end of the dispute, donations totalled closer to £4,000. It was this fund that made it possible to continue to keep out on strike any woman refused the minimum rate by her employer. The dispute ended on 22nd October, when every employer had signed the “White List.”

Rollover the captions in the box to see the available images in thumbnail format, click the caption to see the full-size image

Reference:	733
Keywords:
Archive Ref:
Updated:	Thu 12 Jul 2007 - 1
Interpretation written by	Barbara Harris
Author's organisation
Organisation's website