CHAPTER X VI THE EMPLOYÉS AND WORK MEN IN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES It might be supposed that this chapter deals only with questions of internal order which are merely of interest from the point of view of the good administration of societies. On the contrary, however, we have here one of the most vital points with regard to the future of co-operation, because herein are opposed two antagonistic conceptions, which may be called producers' socialism and consumers' socialism. This antagonism is manifested by the conflict, which exists in a more or less latent condition between the co-operative movement and the syndicalist. In her book "The Co-operative Movement in Great Britain" Miss Potter (Mrs. Sidney Webb) foresees the advent of this régime, in the aspect of two federations, one, that of consumers in their co-operative societies, the other, that of producers in their trade unions, and the equilibrium maintained by the balance of these two antagonistic powers. We must add that this equilibrium would be much better realized if every person were a member of the two organizations, co-operation and trade unionism, as this conflict would therefore not be on the surface, but in the conscience of each individual. (1) Conflicts Between Co-operative Societies and their Employés The question of the relations between the societies and their employés does not become very acute as long as the societies limit themselves to retail trade and consequently employ only shop assistants, who are somewhat above the level of the ordinary working class. But from the time that societies engage in production, and have therefore to employ manual labourers (who are generally trade unionists), the situation becomes critical. In England the number of wageearners in 1917 was 162,000, of whom 101,000 were employed in shops and 61,000 were employed in factories.1 If we only consider the shop employés, we see that the figure 101,000 represents 1 employé for 37 members, i. e., for 37 families and for £1,420 of annual sales. This proportion does not seem excessive, but it might still be reduced by the fusion of societies (see page 186). The problem presented here is similar to that of the relations between the State and its employés, which has already caused very grave trouble in France and elsewhere, and which will become increasingly menacing to the nation. Syndicalism regards every labourer as a person exploited and every employer as an exploiter, and the syndicalist is not disposed to make exceptions in the case of people employed by a co-operative society, or by a co-operative wholesale society. Syndicalism does not renounce for them either the class war or the weapon of the strike. It wants wages to be as high as possible, even though this rise in wages can only be procured by an equal rise in prices. Co-operation, on the contrary, regards the consumer as the person exploited, and wishes to free him. It recognizes no class war, because in its very definition the function of the consumer is independent of all class distinction or of sex. It strives to realize cheapness by reducing the cost of production to a minimum. We might suppose that the relations between the co-operative societies and their employés would be facilitated by the fact that both belong to the working class and should 1 By the beginning of 1921 these figures had risen to a total of 201,500, of whom 114,500 were employed in distribution and 87,000 in production. therefore look upon one another as comrades. But such is by no means the case, as, on the one hand, labourers, when they have control of an enterprise, often display more harshness than middle-class employers, and, on the other hand, management committees of co-operative societies, being composed of workmen absolutely ignorant of everything out of their own particular line, do not inspire their employés with the same respect as a middle-class employer, whose capability is beyond question. This fact frequently results in strained relations. Moreover, those who are not well disposed towards the co-operative movement do not miss a chance of stirring up the employés and the workmen against the societies. Thus, the important liberal and economic paper, Le Temps, in reporting the Co-operative Congress at Rheims in 1913, concluded as follows: "Seeing how cooperative societies-which are the embryo of the new social order-treat their employés, workers can appreciate the degree of liberty which would be theirs, when these societies are firmly established." These two tendencies are antagonistic in their aim, and it is almost inevitable that this opposition should show itself in practice. Trade unions demand of co-operative societies :— (1) The maximum wage for their workmen, that is to say the trade union wage. (2) The minimum working-day. (3) The exclusion of workmen other than trade unionists. They complain that these conditions are accepted by only a relatively small number of societies. However, co-operative societies as a general rule try to satisfy these claims-the first and second, at any rate. All those of socialistic tendency, and the majority, even when neutral, make a rule of ensuring to their workmen and employés the most favourable rate of pay suitable to the economic conditions in which they are obliged to live. And they almost always give a higher wage and fewer hours of work than their commercial competitors.2 Doubtless, there are some co-operative societies which are no better in this respect than private employers, but unjust generalizations are made, for example, that in a Congress of the Social League of Buyers (Ligue Sociale des Acheteurs) by M. Brunhes: "Co-operative societies do not trouble themselves with the conditions of work and workers' wages." Co-operative societies, however, cannot undertake to pay the trade union wage, or keep their shops open only eight hours a day, where such conditions would not permit them to compete with the ordinary traders and would oblige them to shut their shops. It would be acting contrary to the interests of the working-class to ruin co-operative societies by trying to obey the mandate of the trade union. Indeed, even in the cases where they are unable to pay the trade union wage, co-operators try at least to ensure the minimum wage. And they generally allow the same pay to women as to men for equal work. In England, the question of a minimum wage has often been discussed at Congress, 24s. a week being proposed as reasonable, and this was a minimum frequently applied in practice before the war. But if co-operative societies generally pay their lesser employés and their women employés higher than the current rate, they pay their higher officials very much less. Cernesson has remarked, with reason, that this is a grave danger to the societies, because their higher employés are tempted to leave them and go to their competitors. But we can understand that workmen who are members of co-operative 2 This is also true of the vast majority of the societies in the United States. There are enemies of the Co-operative Movement among syndicalists or communists who insist that the co-operatives exploit their employés after the fashion of the capitalists. But in the face of such keen competition by the private merchants, the co-operatives cannot always afford to improve upon prevailing wage rates, hours of labour, and all other conditions of employment at one and the same time. societies will not be willing to give their employés higher salaries than they earn themselves. They consider it, then, very unjust that their workers should go on strike, particularly on sympathetic strikes, that is to say strikes declared without grievances against the co-operative societies, but merely to support a strike against traders or manufacturers. This is what happened in Paris a few years ago during a strike of bakers' operatives. The working bakers of co-operative societies were forced to abandon their work, much to the indignation of co-operators. The latter said, quite rationally, that it was not only a blow against the interests of the working-class (as co-operative societies are formed, in fact, by workers for workers), but also an error in tactics, as it would have been of great service to the strike itself for the co-operative bakeries to have remained open, if only to provide bread for the strikers. The third demand of the trade unions has been admitted by some socialist co-operative societies, but has been disregarded as a rule. Would it suffice, then, to reply to the trade unions thus: Make it obligatory on every trade unionist to join a co-operative society if there is one in his vicinity? Certainly not! Then why ask co-operative societies to do for the trade unionist what the trade unions will not do for them? The two organizations must recruit by their own methods, but they need not play the part of reciprocal recruiting agents. It goes without saying that if co-operative societies must not compel their employés to join a trade union they must not prevent them from doing so, as many employers still do. Employés must have full liberty in this respect. But co-operative societies must somewhat regretfully admit that their employés sometimes form a trade union composed solely of co-operative employés. Such an organization is obviously abnormal, because a trade union is by its |