The Postal Strike of 1922

brennan1979

http://www.theirishstory.com/2012/06/08/the-postal-strike-of-1922/#.T-s-hPVCrcs

Article from the Irish Story.com website about the 1922 Postal Strike. It was a huge industrial dispute that happened right in the middle of the Civil War. Bizarrely, it is very rarely mentioned in the any of the books about this period and, where it is mentioned, it usually only receives a sentence or two of explanation.

jonniebgood1

brennan1979 wrote: »

It was a huge industrial dispute that happened right in the middle of the Civil War. Bizarrely, it is very rarely mentioned in the any of the books about this period and, where it is mentioned, it usually only receives a sentence or two of explanation.

It was the first workers dispute with the new Irish government. I would imagine given the other events of the time it would not register as the most important issue in the era. It is interesting given that James Connolly had wrote about a workers republic that this is what transpired so soon after. Actually there has been a good bit about this on the forum lately. The postal strike was covered quite well in history ireland magazine. This is the description given of the start of the strike-

The strike was provoked by the provisional government’s attempt to cut the ‘cost of living’ bonus, which was paid on a twice-yearly basis to all civil servants, including postal workers. Throughout the Great War civil servants in Britain and Ireland had been granted an allowance to shore up their wages against the dramatic inflation of the war years. After the war these allowances were retained as ‘cost of living’ bonuses to off-set against continuing rising prices. The government took the inflammatory step of introducing a cut in the bonus as early as March 1922, with the threat of further cuts to come. An emergency resolution issued in response by the Irish Postal Union pointed out that:

Whereas the majority of the Irish Civil Service recently gained substantial additions to their permanent remuneration, the wages of the Post Office staff are on practically the same level as those of thirty years ago. Any further reduction will bring Post Office wages to starvation level.

The union resolved to take ‘the necessary steps for an immediate withdrawal of labour in the event of a reduction being enforced’.

And it goes on to make a point interesting in todays over-protected public service context:

The Voice of Labour commented:

The government was appointed last Saturday afternoon. At the time previously appointed, namely, 6pm on Saturday, the strike began...The first act of the government was to issue on Saturday night the following proclamation:

The government does not recognise the right of civil servants to strike. In the event of a cessation of work by any section of the postal service, picketing, such as is permitted in connection with industrial strikes, will not be allowed.
http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume8/issue4/features/?id=246

Jolly Red Giant

I'll paste my response to a similar thread on another forum rather than re-typing a similar response here

The attitude of the Free State government towards the post office strike in 1922 was part of a systematic campaign by the government to drive down wage levels in the country while at the same time cutting taxes for the rich. The post office strike was only one strike in a wide-ranging strike movement that existed at the time as part of a campaign to oppose wage cuts being imposed right across the economy in response to the worldwide economic collapse in the aftermath of World War 1.

The use of the army and police by the Free State government to break strikes was their preferred strategy and occurred not just during the post office strike. In April 1922 a widespread strike of creamery and flourmill workers across north Munster began that became known as the Munster soviets as hundreds of workplaces were occupied and operated by striking workers. The strike occurred in opposition to employers attempting to sack one in four workers and cut wages by 30%. Entire towns and villages were taken over and run by local workers providing supplies for the local community. The strike was condemned by the Farmers union as Bolshevik agitation and leading farmers (who were also prominent republicans) demanded military action against the striking workers. As the Free State forces advanced through Munster their first act on entering every town and village was to physically remove the occupying strikers and arrest the strike leaders. In many cases the soviets lasted for weeks before the intervention of Free State forces.

At the same time large-scale strikes involving farm labourers broke out around the country, the most notable being in Waterford and Kildare. Again the Free State military were used (at the behest of farmers) to break the strikes. Along with the use of Free State troops, the quasi-fascist Farmers Freedom Force (mainly made up of IRA officers) was used to attack striking workers most notably on the Waterford/Cork border. An indication of the influence of the ITGWU at the time can be shown by the election of June 1922 in Waterford/East Tipperary when two ITGWU industrial organisers, John Butler and Nicholas Phelan were elected and the LP topped the poll with over 30% of the vote.

The Free State government made it a priority of suppressing what was known as ‘red flag agitation’ out of the continuing fear that the potential existed for socialist revolution. In many areas it assumed far greater importance than defeating anti-treaty forces (who were in the main ambivalent to the strike wave and in some cases came out in opposition to striking workers). During the seven month long labourers strike in Waterford in 1923 the Free State government drafted in 600 members of the Special Infantry Corps to break the strike. John Butler TD was repeatedly arrested during the strike for distributing strike pay and in many instance the strike pay was stolen by the SIC. Strike leaders were systematically rounded up and tossed into jail on bogus charges of possession of weapons. Emmet O’Connor describes the strike as ‘escalating into a miniature civil war’ – in reality a class war. With the backing of the SIC, farmers began attacking picketlines and breaking up solidarity pickets by dockworkers etc. Employers began systematically locking out workers.

Instead of calling a nationwide general strike in support of the workers in Waterford, the leadership of the ILPTUC once again backed down snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. William O’Brien eventually abandoned the Waterford workers, stopping their strike pay and striking them out as union members. The ITGWU membership began to collapse as a result (from 120,000 down to 11,000 by 1930).

A further strike also demonstrates the attitude of the Free State government. In 1925 a nine month long strike began in Limerick over pay rates for the Ardnacrusha power station. The government signed a contract with Siemens to build the power station and instructed the German company to pay labourers 35s a week instead of the going rate of 52s a week. Retired soldiers were initially used in an attempt to break the strike before eventually joining the striking workers. Pitched battles occurred on the picketlines between police and striking workers outside the Corporation depot in Clancy Strand. A widespread boycott occurred in the city. At one point Siemens offered to pay the full wage rate only for Cosgrave to tell them that they would be in breach of their contract and the government needed wage rates driven down ‘to improve competitiveness’. Once again O’Brien and the ITGWU snatched defeated for the jaws of victory. The strike collapsed when O’Brien backed out of a promise to call a general strike. Conditions on the building site were horrific. Trade unions were banned, over 100 workers were killed during construction, hundreds more were injured. Farmers exploited the conditions by charging massive rents for families to live in haybarns and pigsties.

It was only after the OCI (bus company) strike of 1930 that trade unions began to recover. This time when attempts were made to use the state forces and fascists to break the strike, workers fought back burning buses being used to scab on the strike.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

And it goes on to make a point interesting in todays over-protected public service context:

The measures introduced by a arch right-wing government in the 1920s against public servants were less severe than have already been introduced over the past 5 years.

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

A further strike also demonstrates the attitude of the Free State government. In 1925 a nine month long strike began in Limerick over pay rates for the Ardnacrusha power station. The government signed a contract with Siemens to build the power station and instructed the German company to pay labourers 35s a week instead of the going rate of 52s a week. Retired soldiers were initially used in an attempt to break the strike before eventually joining the striking workers. Pitched battles occurred on the picketlines between police and striking workers outside the Corporation depot in Clancy Strand. A widespread boycott occurred in the city. At one point Siemens offered to pay the full wage rate only for Cosgrave to tell them that they would be in breach of their contract and the government needed wage rates driven down ‘to improve competitiveness’. Once again O’Brien and the ITGWU snatched defeated for the jaws of victory. The strike collapsed when O’Brien backed out of a promise to call a general strike. Conditions on the building site were horrific. Trade unions were banned, over 100 workers were killed during construction, hundreds more were injured. Farmers exploited the conditions by charging massive rents for families to live in haybarns and pigsties.

Was it not a case that the Ardnacrusha strike broke more because of civil war divisions rather than being broken by the army. The divisions along pro-treaty vs. anti-treaty saw the possibility of unity removed thus the strike would not have been complete.

Also the lower wage which you correctly identify as lower than the norm was supplemented by lodgings and keep. It is incorrect to suggest that Siemens wished to pay the higher wage- their representative in Ireland Thomas McLoughlin tried to compare the Ardnacrusha wages with those of farm labourers in the vicinity to make them look more favourable.

The whole affair was a mess. The workers did not keep together and thus they had no chance of improving their lot. It did not take much to break them in this case.

The measures introduced by a arch right-wing government in the 1920s against public servants were less severe than have already been introduced over the past 5 years.

Different horses run different courses. I should'nt have linked between the 2.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Was it not a case that the Ardnacrusha strike broke more because of civil war divisions rather than being broken by the army. The divisions along pro-treaty vs. anti-treaty saw the possibility of unity removed thus the strike would not have been complete.

No - the divisions from the civil war had absolutely no impact on the strike.

The begining of the strike saw a split in the ex-servicemen's association in Limerick with the majority backing the strike and a minority engaging in scabbing. 600 of the 800 ex-servicemen in Limerick actually joined the ITGWU at the outset of the strike. It is possible that within the ex-servicemen's association that this split occurred along civil war lines with pro-treaty elements scabbing on the strike - but it was not a factor during the strike. At most only 120 of the ex-servicemen actually scabbed on the strike and they stopped working shortly afterwards as city-wide support for the strike was consolidated.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Also the lower wage which you correctly identify as lower than the norm was supplemented by lodgings and keep.

This is correct - and the reason why the workers fought so bitterly against the wage cuts.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is incorrect to suggest that Siemens wished to pay the higher wage- their representative in Ireland Thomas McLoughlin tried to compare the Ardnacrusha wages with those of farm labourers in the vicinity to make them look more favourable.

Seimens advertised the jobs at the wage rates they were told to by the government. When the contract was signed it was the government that outlined the wages rates to Seimens. Two months into the strike with work pretty much at a standstill and a widespread boycott of Seimens the company approached the government about increasing the wage rates - this was rejected by the government who demanded that Seimens hold the line in order to ensure that the agri wage rates became the norm.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The whole affair was a mess. The workers did not keep together and thus they had no chance of improving their lot. It did not take much to break them in this case.

Once again this is totally inaccurate - the strike had massive support in the city - dock workers refused to handle any ships containing goods for Seimens, shop workers refused to fill orders for Seimens or serve those who were scabbing on the strike, a city-wide boycott was in place against the company and the striking workers were receiving widespread support from workers all over the country. The government used soldiers to unload ships and soldiers with fixed bayonets were used to protect the ships and lorries carrying goods to Ardnacrusha. There were numerous full scale riots as dock-workers and strikers used grappling hooks and volleys of stones to prevent the unloading of ships and the transport of goods to the work site. On several occasions army officers drew revolvers and threatened to shoot striking workers.

The defeat of the strike was the direct responsibility of the leadership of the ITGWU and the ICTU - having promised a nation-wide general strike in support of the striking workers (just like they had promised during the Limerick Soviet 6 years earlier) yet when push came to shove (just like six years earlier) they renaged on their promise, instead proposed a nationwide boycott of Seimens and then did everything in their power to ensure the boycott would not be implemented. If the trade union leadership had the balls to carry out their promise the government and Seimens would have caved in within a couple of days out of fear that a general strike would have consolidated country-wide opposition to the government austerity programme at the time and brought the government crashing down.

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Once again this is totally inaccurate - the strike had massive support in the city - dock workers refused to handle any ships containing goods for Seimens, shop workers refused to fill orders for Seimens or serve those who were scabbing on the strike, a city-wide boycott was in place against the company and the striking workers were receiving widespread support from workers all over the country. The government used soldiers to unload ships and soldiers with fixed bayonets were used to protect the ships and lorries carrying goods to Ardnacrusha. There were numerous full scale riots as dock-workers and strikers used grappling hooks and volleys of stones to prevent the unloading of ships and the transport of goods to the work site. On several occasions army officers drew revolvers and threatened to shoot striking workers.

The defeat of the strike was the direct responsibility of the leadership of the ITGWU and the ICTU - having promised a nation-wide general strike in support of the striking workers (just like they had promised during the Limerick Soviet 6 years earlier) yet when push came to shove (just like six years earlier) they renaged on their promise, instead proposed a nationwide boycott of Seimens and then did everything in their power to ensure the boycott would not be implemented. If the trade union leadership had the balls to carry out their promise the government and Seimens would have caved in within a couple of days out of fear that a general strike would have consolidated country-wide opposition to the government austerity programme at the time and brought the government crashing down.

You answered that I am incorrect because "the strike had massive support in the city" etc. I did'nt dispute that. What I said was that the strike broke because they did not stick together. This is fact. There were even tensions between Irishmen on the project within the workers huts with a group of connemara men rioting because of problems with fellow workers (source-'A History of Water: Volume III: The World of Water' by Terje Tvedt and Terje Oestigaard). Limerick city may have been behind the strike but what made the situation messy was the availiability of men willing to work for the scheme in the district surrounding Ardnacrusha. The lack of a nationwide strike may not have helped but there were also wider reasons for that. Ultimately if the project in its own right had been held at a standstill the workers would have got their demands. This did not happen.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You answered that I am incorrect because "the strike had massive support in the city" etc. I did'nt dispute that. What I said was that the strike broke because they did not stick together. This is fact.

No it is not fact - the strike was rock solid in Liemrick and throughout East Clare - only a handful of locals scabbed on the strike.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There were even tensions between Irishmen on the project within the workers huts with a group of connemara men rioting because of problems with fellow workers (source-'A History of Water: Volume III: The World of Water' by Terje Tvedt and Terje Oestigaard).

Yes there were tensions on the building site - primarily driven by the dangerous working conditions (up to 100 workers were killed during construction), poor living conditions in the site hostels and the pitifully low wages. But none of this conflict (that occasionally broke out into rioting) involved workers from Limerick - thousands of unemployed workers were drafted into Ardnacrusha from all over the country under threat of being ostracised from local government services and welfare if they refused. Most workers were only kept on site for a period of three months as the government and Seimens did not want to create an opportunity for union organisation on the site.

The foremost historical authority on the Shannon Scheme Strike and the conditions on the site is Michael McCarthy who has written a book and several articles about the strike and the working conditions during construction. This article deals with the conditions for the workers during construction -
http://limerick.ie/media/media,3947,en.pdf

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Limerick city may have been behind the strike but what made the situation messy was the availiability of men willing to work for the scheme in the district surrounding Ardnacrusha.

As I said above - totally inaccurate - no locals worked on the site - the local agricultural labourers continued to work for local farmers all during the strike. Indeed local farmers make a financial killing renting out haybarns amd even pigsties to migrant workers and their families.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The lack of a nationwide strike may not have helped but there were also wider reasons for that.

Again inaccurate - the failure of the ICTU to call a nationwide general strike was the key factor that collapsed the strike.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Ultimately if the project in its own right had been held at a standstill the workers would have got their demands. This did not happen.

The striking workers brought the entire project to a virtual standstill for over 10 weeks without any national help from the ICTU (but with solidarity action by dock workers in Dublin and Cork). Practially nothing was unloaded at Limerick docks and what was only by virtue of the widespread used of soldiers who carried out the work and threatened to shoot striking workers. Even with the threats virtually every attempt to unload a ship at the docks was met with widespread rioting.

A large-scale strike involving thousands of workers in a localised area like Limerick can only sustain itself for a limited period - the fact that they managed to maintain a solid strike with widespread support in the locality (including rural areas) for 10 weeks is actually quite remarkable. The collapse of the strike is down to the abject betrayal of the strike by William O'Brien and the leaders of the ICTU/ITGWU - and remember most of the striking workers would have lived through the similar betrayal of the Limerick Soviet 6 years earlier. While the strike spluttered on for a period - it was doomed once the ICTU renaged on their promise of a general strike and the striking workers knew it.