Revising the 1913 Lockout

Kevin Myers (not a historian) has the usual contrarian bit: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/the-union-cult-of-larkin-is-built-on-factually-baseless-myths-29079014.html

Larkin was certainly not the peaceful pioneer of collective-bargaining, as is now being so preposterously proclaimed, but a syndicalist who ruthlessly used the strike as a weapon to wreck private enterprise. Workers who refused to follow his boycott of blacklisted companies were savagely beaten, even at their homes, while 'The Irish Worker' published the names and addresses of uncompliant women.

In December 1913, Havelock Wilson of the Sailors and Firemen's Union spoke bitterly of the £60,000 raised by unions for "the victims of Larkin's stupidity and blindness". It was not his union's policy – quoting Larkin – "to destroy the employers of labour . . . and the capitalist system", but merely (and note this, please) "to bargain collectively". Larkin, Wilson added, had broken all his promises.

Failure duly followed, and Larkin departed for the US; thereafter, the ITGWU prospered. By 1923, it had 100,000 members, an annual income of £130,000 and assets worth £140,000. Larkin returned that year, and launched a violent putsch against the ITGWU, as he and his followers forcibly occupied Liberty Hall and the union offices in Parnell Square. The ITGWU leaders – Thomas Foran, William O'Brien, Thomas Kennedy: all colleagues of Larkin during The Lockout – sued him.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The commemoration of the Dublin Lockout is a working class commemoration. If the bosses want to go off and organise a bosses commemoration of Murphy and the rest of the employers then that is their choice. They haven't done it simply because it would be monumentally embarassing for them to expose the exploitation of the Dublin working class in 1913 and it would draw too many similarities with the current situation in the country.

If you believe that remembering the lockout is simply a "working class" commemoration then you are mistaken. It is much wider than simply honouring a strike. It also entails the conditions these people lived in, conditions that were eventually improved with the involvement of employers. Tenements, poor health & bad sanitation developed over a longer period of time as a result of many things and this was also a part of the protests of 1913. When we consider the wider community that wishes to share in remembering these times we have amongst other groups, descendants of the 1913 workers from a wide variation of society. With regard to your point about exploiting working class Dublin an argument can be made that this was done by the Larkin to build up the ITGWU as a means of promoting syndicalism.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

It's a pity your bias has undermined your post. Describing other unions as lap dogs and ignoring the widely reported autocratic tendencies of Larkin and Connolly dosent help. General workers are not the only workers that needed unions

At the time of the Lockout in Dublin the craft unions operated as a type of labour aristocracy. Craft workers were (and needed to be) organised but they looked down on semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Even the nationalist leadership criticised them for being more interested in sucking up to the British establishment to get offered positions as Justices of the Peace etc - despite the fact that the bulk of working class support for nationalism came from craft workers. Divisions are nothing new within the trade union movement - and the divisions tend to be on a left/right divide. During the lockout many craft unions were highly critical of the struggle of the semi-skilled and unskilled workers who made up the ITGWU. As for your accusation that Connolly and Larkin were 'autocratic' - I would suggest that this requires you to produce some evidence to back it up.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you believe that remembering the lockout is simply a "working class" commemoration then you are mistaken.

It absolutely is a working class commemoration. The Lockout was a class struggle between labour and capital in a class war initiated by the capitalist class (in the same way that the current class war by the ruling elites in Ireland was instigated by them to foist the cost of the gambling debts on the Irish working class). Labour history has been buried for decades - relegated to the sidelines as the ruling elites dictated the history that should be acknowledged. Any attempts by the likes of Gilmore to claim the heritage of the Lockout must be resisted.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is much wider than simply honouring a strike. It also entails the conditions these people lived in, conditions that were eventually improved with the involvement of employers. Tenements, poor health & bad sanitation developed over a longer period of time as a result of many things and this was also a part of the protests of 1913.

And who were the people who were living in the slum tenaments? who were the people suffering the poor health? the workers of the Lockout and their families.

It is utter nonsense to suggest that the improvement in living conditions came about because of some 'benevolence' of the bosses in this country. If the William Martin Murphy's of this country had their way the working class would still be living in slums and suffering abject poverty. The reason why conditions have improved is precisely because of the battles fought in 1913 and in subsequent years. It was because of the fighting spirit of the Irish working class that improvements in housing, wages, and public services were made.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

When we consider the wider community that wishes to share in remembering these times we have amongst other groups, descendants of the 1913 workers from a wide variation of society.

The overwhelming majority of the decendants of those who fought in the Lockout are still working class people. Irish society is one of the countries that has the least social mobility between the social classes.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

With regard to your point about exploiting working class Dublin an argument can be made that this was done by the Larkin to build up the ITGWU as a means of promoting syndicalism.

Please explain what you are arguing here - it appears to be that you are arguing that Larkin manipulated the situation in order to further his own agenda. I suggest that you need to produce evidence for what you appear to be implying in this statement as it bears no relationship to the truth.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Jolly Red Giant wouldn't be happy until we are all surrounded by Rashers Tierney types as we sit and enjoy our bowl of coddle provided by the Anarchist Workers Collective (Joshua Nkomo Division)

I am not an anarchist and I have no desire to live in poverty. If the government / EU / IMF have their way the Irish working class will be driven back to the conditions of 1913.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It absolutely is a working class commemoration. The Lockout was a class struggle between labour and capital in a class war initiated by the capitalist class (in the same way that the current class war by the ruling elites in Ireland was instigated by them to foist the cost of the gambling debts on the Irish working class). Labour history has been buried for decades - relegated to the sidelines as the ruling elites dictated the history that should be acknowledged. Any attempts by the likes of Gilmore to claim the heritage of the Lockout must be resisted.

The lockout is commemorated by much more than people classified as working class. Reference the many discussions on RTE as proof that this is the case. You may prefer they did not commemorate it but that is a separate matter.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It is utter nonsense to suggest that the improvement in living conditions came about because of some 'benevolence' of the bosses in this country. If the William Martin Murphy's of this country had their way the working class would still be living in slums and suffering abject poverty. The reason why conditions have improved is precisely because of the battles fought in 1913 and in subsequent years. It was because of the fighting spirit of the Irish working class that improvements in housing, wages, and public services were made.

It is you that mentions benevolence in reference to W M Murphy. The reality is that the lockout failed and it took many years for conditions to improve. The improvements were not based on one class acting on its own. To believe so is naïve.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

William Martin Murphy actually is a very good example of social mobility in Ireland. He came from small farmer stock, his father Denis William Murphy started out as a stonemason in Castletownbere before opening a store/building business in Bantry. He became a successful contractor and sent William to lodge with friends in Dublin while he attended Belvedere (supposedly the fees at Clongowes were too much).

Murphy senior died when doing some work for Lord Dunraven, William aged just 19 and fresh out of Belvedere took over the family business, finished the work and so impressed Dunraven that he gave young Murphy more work. The patronage and support of Dunraven led Murphy back to Dublin, where in 1870 aged 25 he became involved in the development of tramways, later expanding into railways. He was self-made, one of Ireland's biggest exporters and a nationalist..

What this country needs are more people like him, who get off their arses and do things (like work and create employment) and less of those who rant and rave about ruling elites, the working class and its struggles.

As for social mobility, (Viscount) Brendan Bracken’s father also started as a stonemason. Tony Ryan who founded Ryanair was the son of a stationmaster and grandson of a train driver. Pat Kenny’s father was a zoo keeper, and even RTE’ s high earner Joe Duffy is from the tenements of Mountjoy square.

Wow - I'm impressed - you have done well - you have managed to name five (5) people over 90 years that have managed to claw their way out of poverty.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Another inane post. I sometimes wonder if you are a creation of Boards.ie and exist solely to drive traffic on this site.:rolleyes:

Have you got any more little anecdotes to amuse us?

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Do you want the posters to name every person in this country who came from humble backgrounds and improved the living standards just to keep you happy?

No - what I want people to do is use factual - not anecdotal - evidence. I argued that social mobility is restricted in Ireland. The evidence exists to back this up -

The Republic of Ireland provides an excellent example of a situation in which social change does offer substantial opportunities for advancement, as reflected in absolute mobility rates, while the privileged classes respond to such change in a manner that leaves their relative advantages intact.

(Christopher Whelan, Social Mobility in Ireland in the 1990s, The Economic and Social Review, Vol. 30, No.2, April 1990, p.156)

Santa Cruz wrote: »

While there were many who progressed well in the early days of this State since the introduction of free secondary education in the late 60s the door to higher level has opened for all who have the ability to enter same. I am not saying that it is financially easy but with hard work it is possible.

Social mobility is not related to educational attainment. Many jobs that could be secured in the 1970s by having a Leaving Certificate now require a Masters Degree. Wage rates have patterned the norms of previous decades.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

I come from a town where there were a number of long established industries related to the agricultural sector. The sons and daughters of many of the ordinary industries workers have been able to avail of third level education be it university of Institutes of technology. This has resulted in them achieving a higher standard of living for themselves and their offspring. Their increased income opportunities have mean money has gone back in to the economy.

More anecdotal evidence.

I come originally from a small town in the west of Ireland. One winter's evening when we had nothing better to do myself and my father sat down and went through all the businesses in the town, who owned them and how they got to own them. Of the 140 businesses (shops, pubs, etc) 138 of them were inherited from family members. Only two people in the town had successfully established new businesses. Now - again - this is anecdotal evidence - it does not disprove social mobility no more than your anecdotal evidence proves it.

The reality is that Irish society has a very small (golden) circle of very wealthy individuals (no more than 3,000-4,000) - the overwhelming majority of whom inherited their wealth. The social mobility that does exist in Ireland primarily comes from shifts within a very small range among working class people - e.g. from unskilled to semi-skilled, skilled or professional workers. Old social barriers in terms of employment have broken down primarily because of the continued demise of the agricultural sector (in particular with the undermining of family farms and the development of ranch farms) and (as you suggested) improved educational opportunities - but again this breakdown of social barriers operates within a very small range. There has been a proletarianisation of sections of the old middle class where the likes of the teaching profession etc have shifted from middle class to working class.

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Of course there will always be a small minority of people who actually believe this class struggle rubbish. They are happy to be lectured to by people who have availed of the thirds level opportunities themselves but still see a need to keep the majority of the proletariat down.

Again - produce evidence for your assertion - you own prejudices do not count.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by the 'lockout failed' - The employers locked out the workers for trying to join the ITGWU. The workers movement was defeated in the lockout but the employers failed in their objective of smashing the trade union movement in general and the ITGWU in particular. It resulted in the utter exposure of the naked class aggression of the Irish nationalist employer class and thought the Irish working class the ultimate lesson of class struggle.

I mean the workers went back to work. It did not expose anything in the manner you describe. This sounds like fantasy and you are forgetting later strikes which happened despite the overwhelming nationalistic nature of post WWI Ireland.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

As for the 'improvements' - by 1918 (five years after the lockout) the ITGWU had begun to flourish and wrestle substantial pay increases and improvements in working conditions from employers. Improvements in social services began in the 1930s again under pressure from the working class.

I think you may have forgotten another significant event over 'by 1918' WWI was a far more significant event in terms of improving working conditions in Ireland and wider afield.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

However - the problem is that you completely missed the point. The issue is not that more 'opportunities' have been created (any growing industrialised economy will generate more 'opportunities') - the key is that fact that, as Whelan has outlined, the privileged classes respond to such change in a manner that leaves their relative advantages intact.

We are going off topic here but would working classes not seek to retain their relative gains as opportunity gives.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

We are going off topic here but would working classes not seek to retain their relative gains as opportunity gives.

Of course - however when the economy crashes the ruling elites don't put their hands in their own pockets to carry the can for the crisis - they take back the relative gains made during preceeding years. That is what is happening today. Furthermore - advances and retreats are made not on the basis of what economic situation exists (although there is a direct correlation) - but on the balance of class forces in society. During 1917-1921 the balance of class forces were firmly on the side of the working class - post 1921 (really from Jan. 1922 onwards) the balance swung back to the ruling elites as strike movements were defeated and the leadership of the ILPTUC abandoned workers.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You continue to interpret social data in a biased manner, ignoring that which is not in accord with your perspective.

I didn't interpret the data - Whelan did - it was his conclusion.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Whelan said Do you not understand what the word ‘absolute’ means in that sentence?
The simple fact remains - there were/are opportunities, they were/are open to all, some took/take them, others chose not to. A painter does not need capital to set up a business, nor does a carpenter.

No one is denying that from the 1990s onwards opportunities for social mobility increased - however - again - Whelan concluded that while these opportunities existed, but the rich elites used their position in society to limit social mobility so that their position would not be threatened. If you have a problem with this conclusion then take it up with him.

Furthermore - just because a worker sets up a 'business' does not mean he is not a worker. It simply means that instead of receiving a wage for his job he has to compete as a manufacturing/service provider. If you brought your argument to its logical conclusion then (because of C45 sub-contracting) nearly every trademan employed in the construction industry in the 1990s would have been engaged in social mobility - they weren't

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Education is needed for more 'tech' jobs but the Irish Ed system is free - consider what it was like in the 60's and 70's and college students actually worked in the summer to earn their fees. Back-to-work schemes also provide an income cushion for present-day start-ups. Even during the Celtic Tiger it was impossible to shift some of the proletariat off their arses/dole and we had to import thousands of migrants who were prepared to seize an opportunity.

This is nothing more than a right-wing rant against the unemployed - devoid of any evidence.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

What is needed is drive, ambition and hard work. Those are the elements that are lacking in many of the poorer segments of society, and they are kept in that condition by the cant of ultra-left wing idiots waffling on about ‘privileged classes’ and 'ruling elites are attempting to usurp the struggle of the Irish working class'.

I hope you got some badly needed relief from this -

Back to the point at hand -

WM Murphy's social mobility was not from working class or rural poor background. Your assessment of Murphy's upbringing is inaccurate. Murphy's father was not just a 'stonemason' - he was a building contractor who also had retail businesses as a provider of building materials. I like the dig about Clongowes - but how many Irish Catholic boys do you think went to Belvedere for their education in the early 1860s? The Murphy and O'Connor building contracting business ended up as one of the largest in the Cork/Kerry region (in part because of the involvement of WMM). Murphy married into a very wealthy family - the Lombards - and his father-in-law bankrolled his business expansion. Your implied assertion that Murphy was of 'poor stonemason' stock who built himself up by his bootstraps is utter nonsense.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Murphy senior started as a stonemason, he died as a small builder/building yard owner.

Then we disagree over the scale of Murphy Sr's wealth.

Murphy Sr. started out as a farmer and building contractor in Castletownberre but moved to Bantry in 1846 (when WMM was 2 years old) and significantly expanded his business interests.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

(At the time he was building a small summer home for Lord Dunraven on the Kenmare River.)

At the time of his death Murphy Sr was involved in several building contracts including Skibbereen gasworks and the light-house at Galley Head. This would indicate that he was more than a 'small builder' - and was in fact a substantial builder if he was engaged in a number of contracts at the same time.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

At 17 WMM took over the business,

He was 19

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

WMM was a highly successful businessman at the age of 25

He was also noted as a character who exacted revengge against those who he felt slighted him and who ate `... his vengence cold.' against those who slighted him (F. Callanan, T. M. Healy (Cork 1996).

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

There is no doubt that the Lombard connection was a help, but Murphy was very secure financially long before that, illustrated by the fact that the marriage was permitted.

yes he was financially secure - including the wealth he inheritied from his father. However, the significant financial resources he secured from the Lombards facilitated a massive expansion of his business empire (including tramways and railways, Cleary's department store and housing development in Drumcondra). To portray WMM as someone from a humble background is utter nonsense.