THE NORTHAMPTON SHOEMAKERS' REACTION TO INDUSTRIALISATION: SOME THOUGHTS KEITH BROOKER Jeffery Porter's article, The Northampton tion has been seen as being generated by either a Boot & Shoe Arbitration Board Before 1914'' is vocal militant minority, or by latter-day Luddism. the latest in a long line of national and local Inevitably, the attitudes of men are more com­ studies, which have firmly set the footwear plex, and here one finds a significant portion who industry in the vanguard of industrial relations were n<;>t nec~ssarily militant nor Luddite, yet developments before 1914. Indeed, the ability of were dtametncally opposed to official union the industry to establish such a code of concilia­ policy in several fundamental respects. Conse­ tion and arbitration practice has dominated the quently, Porter's dismissal of rank and file dissent writing on this period in the trade's labour during this period by the sentence, " ...There was history. also difficulty because the replacement of outdoor The article rightly stresses the difficulties and working by indoor workshops brought with it conflicts the Northampton, and indeed other problems of adjustments similar to those arbitration boards faced in their work to adjust experienced by other trades during the Industrial wage rates, productivity levels, and associated Revolution and the drawing up of factory rules matters during this petiod of technological and caused considerable friction ... '', 4 would appear organisational change in the industry. Yet this to be not only perfunctory, but also to ignore the institutional response to change really only relates fundamental issue which divided employer and part of the story, and, in common with both employee at this time. modern and contemporary writers, Porter's work tends to understate the degree of rank and file dissent; a dissent both to changes instigated by employers, and the resultant policies generated by There was indeed a radical shift in the mode of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives. pr~d.uction which gav~ rise to a challenging of In part this is because the 'main-stream' of source ~xis!mg workshop ~elat10nships and life-style, and material utilised by industrial relations writers It will be useful, bnetly, to place this shift into its does not fully document this dissent, for example, economic perspective. Despite the adoption of under the Board's constitution the scope of machinery in the trade from the late 1850s and the 'associated matters' was so tightly circumscribed beginnings of a sub-division of labour, many as not to include issues relating to workshop workers retained the ability to exercise extensive practice and management, the very issues which freedoms at work, whether he worked in his own this article will argue increasingly concerned the h. o~e! rented a sitting in a workshop, or, more ordinary shoemaker . 2 Also one can detect an stgm~Icantly,. lab~ured on an employer's over-commitment to the thesis of an orderly premises, as mcreasmg numbers of piece-workers movement to industrial peace within the did. It was not until the years after 1885 that industry .3 In so far as the question is considered, under the impetus of recurrent trade depressio~ rank and file opposition is presumed to be broadly aggrav3:t~d by increasing .home and later foreign coincidental with that of trade union policy, i.e. competitiOn together with a tightening costs an essential acceptance of machine working, s~ructure, there occurr~d a change in organisa­ provided that no economic disadvantage was tiOnal structure-the eclipse of domestic outwork­ experienced in so doing. Beyond this, any opposi- ing by a centralised factory system. As A. E. Marlow, a prominent Northampton manufac­ turer, was to state in 1916: ' Northamptonshire Past and Present Vol. VI 2, 93-99. No. p. "Th!rty years ~go ~hoemaking in Northampton 2 Comments in this article refer primarily to male piece-workers. Those employed on day-work were was JUSt emergmg from the domestic handicraft introduced to notions of work discipline much earlier, stage into that of a highly organised in­ and though they were to be affected by change, dustry ... " 5 particularly in regard to the dilution of labour, their response differed significantly. 3 e.g. L. Poole, '60 years of Industrial Peace' BBSI 4 J. H. Porter, op. cit., p. 96. Journal, vol. 7, (1956) p. 194-200. Shoe & Lealher Supplemenl 1916 p. xxi. 151 152 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE PAST AND PRESENT PLATE l. THE NORTHAMPTON SHOEMAKER IN 1866. To preserve profits and market share the shoe Initially, the manufacturers sought to assert the manufacturer had traditionally resorted primarily basic right to control all matters concerning to wage reductions in order to cut costs in production and discipline. This mastery was depression, but as trade union effectiveness finally achieved by the shoe union's defeat in the increased he began to look more to increases in 1895 Lockout. From this date, manufacturers business efficiency and productivity as the means began to fully exploit .the new technology by of retaining his competitive advantage. In the systematising and rationalising work practices and period, the acceptance of the need to centralise procedures to suit machine working. This need to machine working in all possible processes rapidly rationalise was made more urgent not only by the gained ground. By the early nineties, amongst increased speed and increased sophistication of progressive firms, these ideas were being trans­ improved machinery, which further sub-divided lated into practice: in 1890 Stubbs and Grimsdell work processes, but also by continued economic became the first Northampton firm to concentrate and trading pressures. all processes under one roof,6 to be followed by Manfield & Sons 'revolutionary' new factory in f-1 1894, meanwhile G. T. Hawkins became the first By the term rank and file dissent is meant not manufacturer to lay down a complete machine just a stark craft-conservatism, nor merely an finishing plant. 7 Arcadian harking back to a past tradition, but To achieve the increase in productivity and rather a resentment to the erosion of and change product quality offered by new and improved in the quality of life at work. This quality of life technology it now became necessary for the was derived not so much from the material manufacturer to wrest the control enjoyed by his rewards the shoemaker received from his daily piece-workers on the shop-floor from them. The avocation-for in terms of the hours he worked resultant conflict was played out in two phases. and his earning capacity he was far poorer than many other artisan groupsB-as from the control 6 Boot & Shoe Trades Journal, I8 January 1890, p. 112. 8 e.g. see J. Foster, Class Struggle & Industrial 7 Northampton Independent 30 September 1948, Revolution (1974); Anon, 'Northampton Shoemakers', p. 10 Good Words 1869. THE NORTHAMPTON SHOEMAKERS' REACTION TO INDUSTRIALISATION: SOME THOUGHTS 153 PLATE 2. PART OF THE CLICKING ROOM IN MANFIELD'S NEW FACTORY IN 1894. he was able to exercise--over his operative and term. Increased output at busy periods, therefore social life in the workshop. As George Battle was achieved by the use of closers or sewers to th~ noted: trade, or the often uneconomic expedient of increasing the labour price, i.e. by the employ­ "Many of the workshops were small and ment of the old, less skilled, or shoddy workmen stifling in the extreme, but the shop was Liberty of whom a surplus pool existed in the town. I~ Hall, the men were free and independent, and 1885 it was noted in Northampton that: consequently happy ... "9 '' ... the short period before Whitsuntide is one There exists much documentary evidence which of great rush ... Of course, this being the case admirably illustrates the extent to which the shoe­ the difficulty is to get the work done. The work maker controlled his working environment up to people know they can have it when wanted yet the 1890s. This considerably hampered any do just what they like, and no more. There attempt by manufacturers to significantly improve seems to be no control over rivetters and efficiency and productivity. finishers, either indoor or outdoor workers, as Output levels amongst piece-workers appear to to how much they shall do, or how long they have been set by a mix of personal inclination and shall work. They appear to have every license to group custom, the ultimate limits being deter­ do as they like, while on the other hand the mined by the prevailing methods of hand clickers and other indoor hands must e~pect working. Attempts to gain any substantial incre­ summary dismissal if they are not at their work ment in individual productivity appears to have regularly and turn out so much per week ... The been largely fruitless. From the meagre wage data manuf~cturers ought to have this opportunity available men appear to have been disinclined to of makmg up for the slackness which is sure to go beyond prescribed limits, and given the prevail after the holidays and his employees prevailing system of piece-work, manufacturers ought to make up for the loss of earnings were unable to bring about a change in the short during that quiet time, but its a fact that in the majority of cases, the workmen have no idea of the future ... "10 9 C. J. Battle, 'Workshops-The Old & The New', Shoe & Leather Record, 25th January 1895, p.177-180. IU BSTJ, 23 May 1885, p. 304. I 54 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE PAST AND PRESENT Whilst this extract suggests that it might have been diversions between work and social assoc1at10n desirable to inculcate the shoemaker with new were intertwined and complimentary .16 At its economic ideals, the prevailing industrial system most idyllic it has been summed up thus: did offer them, as a group, several important economic advantages, viz., (a) it allowed older "There is a social content in the old order of and slower workers to remain within the labour shoemaking which is lacking in the new, in the market.