Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

we understand as trades unions, although they resembled them.

The name itself is somewhat significant, being derived, so it is supposed, from the Anglo-Saxon word gylden or gildan, meaning "to pay," for a very important feature of the guilds was the contribution by or assessment of its members. Curiously enough the word signified any kind of an association, without reference to its purpose, where a common fund was created through individual contributions of members. But it is certain, in accordance with all modern authorities, that these early guilds had no connection with trade or industry; they were social, sometimes protective, sometimes political and almost unanimously composed of a religious spirit. As Gierke puts it: "The old Germanic guild embraced the whole man and was intended to satisfy all human purposes; it was a union such as exists today only in our towns or cites. It answered at the same time religious, moral, social, economical and political purposes.' This might apply to our early town

settlements in New England.

Some of these guilds were social and charitable. Growing out of them or existing with them were the guilds-merchant and the craft-guilds. The earlier of these were the guildsmerchant, securing great power and sometimes constituting the governing force of towns, but the craft-guilds gained in strength and ultimately took the place of the guildsmerchant. It is with the craft-guilds that we have to deal.

Brentano, in his History of Guilds and Trades Unions, argues that they were associations of craft-guilds to protect themselves from the "Abuse of power on the part of the lords of the town who tried to reduce the free to the dependence of the unfree." This view is not generally supported.

Dr. Cunningham, in his History of Industry and Commerce, took the ground that these guilds were "called into being not out of antagonism to existing authorities, but as new institutions to which special parts of their own duties

were delegated by the borough officers or the local guildmerchant," while another authority, Prof. Ashley, late of Harvard University, takes the ground that they were selfgoverning bodies of craftsmen, more or less under municipal control but without force. He thinks they are in no case to be identified with modern trades unions. In fact, authoritative writers, as already indicated, have taken that view.

While the guilds-merchant may be designated as monopolies in traffic, the craft-guilds certainly were monopolies in production. They were organizations of employers and had charge of trade in cities. No one could carry on any trade, either in the city or its surroundings, unless he became a member of the craft-guild. While the social features, consisting of gatherings, processions, feasts, etc., were an important element in the guilds, they also provided for assistance to the needy and for the common welfare; but these features were insignificant in the constitution of the craft-guilds. Their true significance was economic not social, and thus they have been confounded with modern trades unions. To secure membership there must be a full knowledge of the details of a trade, for the principal provisions of the craft, as indicated, in fact the very soul of its existence, consisted in regulations relative to the excellence of products and the capacity of workmen.

Much good resulted from these guilds, such as the prohibition of night work or sales by candle-light. They also were important in the cathedral building ages, the religious features of the guild, with the skill it could command, giving it large influence. They developed the apprenticeship system, but the guilds were not a monopoly in one sense for any one could become apprentice and the number was limited only by the ability of the master to support them, or by considerations of a public nature. The apprentice formed a part of the master's family; he was to keep his master's secrets, doing no injury or committing waste on his goods; he was not to frequent taverns or to betroth

himself without his master's permission, or to mingle in any way with lewd women.*

All disputes were settled primarily by the wardens of the guilds, some of whom were chosen from the ranks of the journeymen themselves. The journeyman was protected against exactions on the part of an unscrupulous master, so conflicts in interest were unknown. The journeyman always looked forward to the period when he would be admitted to the freedom of the trade. There was no insuperable obstacle thrown in the path of the workman; the time was the period of supremacy of labor over capital, and the master himself worked.

These mediæval guilds expanded were really composed of masters and men to a certain extent; certainly all had to be members of or workers in a trade. There were journeymen's societies contemporaneous with the guilds, such as fraternities of servants and others. The unions were everywhere confined to the youths who gradually became masters and were then enrolled as full members of the craft-guild proper. These unions were therefore fitting schools for the guilds, but as time went on there was a change and the guilds became wealthy and powerful, and thus secured the hatred of the people, and their downfall came at various dates in different countries but from the early to the middle part of the 17th century.

There is little or no similarity between these guilds and modern labor organizations, except in so far as the guilds and the modern trades unions seek to regulate the apprenticeship system and to secure to the masters in some respects aid and assistance. Their antagonism lies in the fact that the guild served to secure for the master the labor of the apprentice for a very long time at a very low rate of wages or for no wages at all, to keep down the wages of the journeyman and to keep down competition by limiting the number of masters.

*Seligman: Mediæval Guilds of England.

That such unions or organizations or associations have had an existence is well known to historians, but, as I have intimated, they have not been understood or very carefully studied. But the fact is established that they existed, and they were very largely impregnated with some religious cult. They shaped their course from that of the aristocrats who worshipped the shades of their ancestors. The workingmen, however, in their unions had their patron gods.

Like all history, the facts concerning early organizations are nebulous and hazy, so the date of the first labor organization cannot be given. It is certain, however, to have been at a very early date, for Plutarch in his Theseus relates that as early as 1180 B. C. there arose a demand from the common people to be allowed to enter into the Eleusinian mysteries. The workingmen complained that they were excluded from the aristocratic religious rites, their employers, the aristocrats of the time, taking the ground that these workingmen had no souls. Thus the workingmen's thought came strongly into view at that early day, and it resulted in the organizations of the time.

Trades unions were common in Solon's days. The twelve tables of the Roman law distinctly specified the manner of these organizations. References may be found in the time of Joshua (1537-1427 B. C.), to trades unions, and those of us who are members of the most ancient but now speculative trade union and are master workmen, are familiar with those of the time of Solomon and know how Hiram of Tyre, the architect of the Temple of Jerusalem, organized his workmen. He had with him 3200 foremen from Tyre and 40,000 free artificers, but Phidias it is said employed 50,000 unionist craftsmen ten years in designing and completing the Parthenon.

Mommsen relates that in the time of Numa Pompilius there were innumerable communal associations. These organizations consisted mostly of freed men, but it is diffi

cult to learn just what inspired them. The right of organization in very ancient time extended all over Europe, so far as is known. Numa Pompilius tolerated these organizations; in fact he ordered that the entire working population be distributed into eleven guilds. Mommsen does not quite agree to this, although it is given on the authority of Plutarch. Mommsen concludes that there were eight classes, but the distinction is of no consequence for the purposes of this paper.

The trades were distinct and covered all the arts of antiquity. During the reign of Numa the trades unions made great advancement; skilled workmen were required during all the war-like times, and the workers had their golden era, so far as ancient times are concerned. The distinct character, however, remains an unwritten page, but the right of combination continued for over 600 years, there being no interruption until 58 years before Christ. Then it was that the industrial population of Rome was considered outcast, and being well organized they exerted considerable, even powerful, political influence.

King Numa, while not originating the union of the trades at Rome, permitted and encouraged what already existed. The Collegium was a positive trade union, originally created for the purpose of mutual aid and protection. A trade union of today, while protective, also performs the function of an aid society, as insurance, burial funds, sick funds, etc., and this was true in Numa's time. So the collegia, while maintaining their economic or trade union purpose of securing mutual advantages in trade relations, sometimes passed for religious institutions. Sometimes the burial society was distinct and had a name of its own. This was true of the early Greek unions, and those who ate at a common table were burial societies, ship carpenters, boat makers, millers, firemen, wine dealers, etc., etc. These collegia were found in the Roman Empire, Asia Minor, the Greek Islands, Spain and Gaul, as well as in Greece and

« AnteriorContinuar »