Trade Unions in Soviet Russia

Front matter

Trade | Unions

IN

Soviet | Russia

Trade Unions in Soviet Russia

Trade Unions in Soviet Russia:

Their development and present position.

By A. LOZOVSKY

(Member of the Executive Committee of the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions).

I. The Early Period.

Trade Unions as fighting organs of the working class against the capitalists arose in Russia only after 1905. But the first hints at labour organisation could be traced to periods considerably before the first revolutionary mass conflicts between the workers and the autocracy. Among these early forms of working class organisations must be included all kinds of benefit societies, mutual aid societies, burial societies and other organisations aiming at elementary mutual aid. These forms of mutual aid societies were particularly widespread in Poland and the Baltic Provinces. In 1898 there were in the Baltic Provinces 98 workingmen's benefit societies and 113 burial societies including members of all classes. Several of these societies date back; to the beginning of the nineteenth century (1821). Similar societies also existed in the Ural region. Reference must also be made to the benefit societies among printers, compositors and lithographers founded in 1838 in Petrograd and to the printers' benefit societies in Moscow. In the eighties and nineties eleven printers' mutual aid societies existed in a number of towns in Russia.

Side by side with this there arose craftsmen societies and in 1898 there were 15 of these in Russia, besides 54 burial societies including all classes. The most widespread organisations previous to the first revolution were shop assistants' societies, and very often the employers were honorary members of these. Mutual aid societies among factory workers did not develop before the middle of the nineties. All these organisations were founded for the purpose of granting financial benefits to the sick, supplying medical assistance and funeral benefit, assistance to invalids, to widows and orphans, and loans and assistance to the needy. These organisations had no relation whatever to the economic struggle. The tsarist policy jealously took care of that. The rules of the factory benefit funds were confirmed by the Minister of Finance, the rules of other mutual aid societies had to be confirmed by the Minister of the Interior and permission for the establishment of such societies in Poland had to be obtained from the Tsar on the representations of the Cabinet of Ministers.

All these societies, benefit funds and burial societies could only serve an insignificant section of the workers and in no case could they satisfy the need of the workers in a fighting organisation. As the whole machinery of the State was directed to crush the slightest attempt at organising a union in Russia, illegal trade unions began to arise which were part of illegal social-democratic organisations.

Illegal Strikes.

Strikes in Russia were prohibited and were regarded as crimes. As clause 318 of the Criminal C9de of 1874 declares: "Persons accused of belonging to societies having the aim of rousing hostility between employers and workers as well as provoking strikes are liable to imprisonment for 8 months with deprivation of rights and property and exile to Siberia." This law did not remain a mere dead letter; tsarism undeviatingly put it into force and severely persecuted every organised action of the workers and every attempt at improving their position. But repressions never could abolish the class struggle and since the seventies the strike movement in Russia has developed side by side with the development of capitalism. The sharp elemental, strikes of the seventies compelled the government to pass the law of the 1st of June, 1882, prohibiting the employment of children below 12 years of age and limiting the employment of children between 12 and 15 to 8 hours a day. In the eighties the central industrial districts were overwhelmed by a wave of strikes which took a particularly sharp form in Orechov-Zouev due to the imposition of fines. As a consequence of this a law was passed on June 3rd, 1886, referring to the hiring of workers in factories and one in 1885 prohibiting nightwork for women in several industries.

In spite of imprisonment, exile and savage persecution of strikers the strikes broke out in one centre after another. In 1896 a strike of 35 thousand textile workers broke out in Petrograd, which made a tremendous impression not only upon the Government but upon the working classes themselves. The Government, after a series of repressions, issued the law of 1897 which, for the first time in Russia, limited the working day for adult factory workers to 11½ hours for day work and 10 hours for night work. We see therefore that all our factory legislation is closely connected with the large strikes and that in order to avoid discontent, as Professor Tugan-Baranovsky points out, the Ministry of the Interior and the Police Department undertook the task of factory legislation.

Socialists and Trade Unions.

The economic strikes were so obviously connected with politics that the first illegal socialist groups that arose in Russia after the defeat of the Narodniki devoted particular attention to the organisation of the economic struggle. The first strike funds were established as far back as 1888 in Vilna among stocking knitters, tailors and the workers in the paper and boot trades. In 1894 the Jewish workers' federation of Warsaw organised such funds in several trades. In Minsk 4 illegal trade unions were organised with 220 members. In Vilna 12 funds were established. Altogether in Vilna there were 850 organised workers belonging to 27 trades and in Minsk 870 workers belonging to 15 trades. These strike funds played such an important part in the development of the Labour movement that when in 1897 the Jewish Labour League of Lithuania, Poland and Russia (the Bund) was established, these strike funds were its foundation stone. The part played by these organisations can be seen from the following figures: in 1900 of the total number of local Jewish workers in Bielostock 20 per cent. were organised in these societies, in Vilna, 24 per cent., in Gomel nearly 40 per cent. and in Minsk 35–40 per cent.

In the nineties unions for fighting for the emancipation of the working class arose in Central Russia and illegally, conducted strikes and assisted strikers. In several Petrograd factories illegal fighting funds were established of which one fourth of the members' contributions were devoted to strikes, a half for mutual aid and the rest for books. In 1895 a Labour Union was established in Ivanovo-Voznesensk which established funds and a library. In 1897 a Central Fund was set up in Nikolaeff, half of the income of which was devoted for strike purposes. All these strike funds and labour unions were created by the Social-Democrats who, in this manner, stood, so to speak, at the cradle of the trade union movement in Russia. These illegal fighting funds and strike funds undoubtedly were embryonic forms of trade unions. In 1898 all unions for the emancipation of the working class united into a single Social-Democratic Labour Party which in Central Russia relied upon illegal groups and organisations and in Poland and the Western provinces on the illegal purely party trade unions. The Russian trade union movement from the moment of its birth bound itself up with the political labour movement. This particular feature of the Russian labour movement manifests itself up to the present moment.

Unions Organised by the Police.

The accentuation of the economic struggle which took the form of political demonstrations against the autocracy suggested the idea in police circles of creating legal labour organisations for the purpose of combatting the harmful influence of the Social-Democrats. The Chief of the Moscow Police, Trepoff, and the Chief of the Moscow "Okrana" ZubatofT were engaged on this question. Trepoff, in one of his reports, states that "success in the struggle rouses a confidence in their strength, teaches them to adopt practical methods of fighting, trains and brings to the front able leaders, convinces the workers of the possibility and the utility of collective action and develops a consciousness for the necessity of the class struggle" and urges the necessity for creating an antidote to the political influence of the Social-Democrats. In Moscow, in 1902, a mechanic society was organised under the direct leadership and protection of the Okrana. In Minsk the Chief of the Police, Vassilev, and in Odessa, Shaevitch, set up similar well intentioned organisations. All the efforts of the Okrana were directed towards concentrating the attention of the working class upon mutual assistance and diverting them from political questions; but they had quite an unpleasant experience. As long as these were small closed organisations they were quite harmless but as soon as the broad labour masses began to join, they became centres of the economic struggle. The historian of this police device, Professor Oseroff, declares that as soon as the weavers, for instance, on the initiative of the Okrana, organised a mutual aid society they sent delegates to the factories with a demand for an increase of wages. The union created in Odessa was the initiator of large strikes in which tens of thousands of workers participated. The attempt of the Okrana to protect the economic organisations roused protests on the part of the manufacturers who regarded this as an attempt ot the feudal government to save itself by stirring up the workers against the bourgeoisie. Complaints flowed from Moscow to Petrograd, the Minister of Finance took the side of the employers and Zubatoff was transferred to Vologda.

But as the labour movement was growing unrestrainedly a fresh attempt was made by the Police in 1904 to create support among the workers. A meeting of the Russian factory workers under the protection of the Minister of the Interior, Plehve, and the Metropolitan Antonius, formed a society for the purpose, as the rules state, of "arousing and strengthening national consciousness of the workers." At the head of this society stood Father Gapon who organised 11 branches. These branches in spite of their police origin became the centre of the labour movement in Petrograd. A series of strikes and demonstrations took place which ended in the bloody shambles of the 9th January (old style). This tampering of the police with the workers resulted in the defeat of the autocracy.

The Revolution of 1905.

Bloody Sunday served as a starting point for a tremendous revolutionary impetus. In the course or several months more than 500,000 workers struck. Strikes broke out one after another. Economic strikes took the shape of political strikes. The pressure was so great that tsarism had to look through its fingers at the "illegal" activity of the workers. Simultaneously with the bloody January days and the strike wave roused by these events the work of organising the trade unions was proceeding. The first union to be formed was that of the printers. Immediately after a union of clerks and book-keepers was formed. At the same time a semi-legal union of shop assistants and a union of druggist assistants began to organise. At a secret meeting held in May, 1905, unions of watch makers, tailors, tanners and boot and shoe makers were formed.

A number of unions were formed in Moscow in the spring of 1905. The illegal printers' union which existed in Moscow since 1903 for improving the conditions of labour and which accepted the programme of the Social-Democratic Party, carried on since 1905 an economic struggle. But in September, 1905, a printers' strike broke out in Moscow and advantage was taken of the occasion to create a council of printers' delegates for Moscow which, in fact, became a trade union. In the spring of 1905 the Bolsheviks organised a party union of bakers, the founders of which practically became the leaders of the then trade union movement. Similar attempts at forming unions in this improvised manner were made all over Russia and became more frequent as the end of 1905 drew near. In September a new strike wave broke out over the whole of Russia which led to the great strike and famous demonstration of October, 1905. The labour movement in Russia broke through the barriers erected by the autocracy.

First Trade Union Conference, 1905.

The sporadic and spontaneous manner in which the trade unions developed resulted in their composition and organisation being- very diverse, but the demand for a common centre was so great that as far back as 1905 at a meeting of representatives of local trade union organisations in Kharkoff, it was decided to call a national conference. On September 24th and October 1st, 6th and 7th was held the first conference of trade union representatives. At this conference 26 Moscow unions and labour groups, and ten unions from other towns were represented, and the fundamental question which concerned the conference was the organisation of preparatory work in connection with the convening of a national conference. The question arose as to who could participate in the conference in view of the fact that there were no definitely formed unions. The conference decided that "the right to participate in the conference belongs to such mutual aid societies and trade unions as are composed of wage workers of all trades of a proletarian character and are directly or indirectly aiming at fighting capital." With regard to mixed societies it was decided that only the proletarian section of such organisations could have the right of representation. No access to the conference was to be given to the Zubatov organisations. Thus, from the very birth of the unions just emerging from the mutual aid society stage, the struggle assumed a purely class character. In undertaking the struggle against capitalism these unions immediately reached a higher level than many western European and American unions, who, even to-day still regard as their only function the improvement of the conditions of labour. The October days in 1905 gave a tremendous impetus to the trade union movement. At the end of that year there was not a single large town in Russia where a trade union had not been formed. The October political strike gave rise to a number of economic conflicts which, in their turn again, were converted into political conflicts. Everywhere, initiative groups, commissions, strike committees, trade unions, workers' delegate councils were formed and all these organisations, taking advantage of the period of liberty, extended their influence over ever newer sections of the workers. In spite of the series of defeats suffered by the workers in November and December, 1905, the trade unions continued to grow and increase in numbers and when, at the end of February, 1906, the second conference of trade unions was convened, Russia could count 200,000 organised workers.

Second 3Trade Union Conference, 1906.

The second conference decided in favour of the sporadic formation of trade unions independently of the permission of the authorities. The conference carried a number of resolutions in connection with the pressing questions of that day and again decided that the practical task of the moment was a convocation of a national conference of trade unions. It worked out the standing orders of such a conference, the agenda, and elected an organisation committee for convening a national conference. The organisation bureau was elected to serve as a national centre until the meeting of the conference and it was the function of this bureau not only to maintain connection with trade unions in Russia, but also to establish connection with the European trade unions. In defining the character of organisations which would be eligible for representation at the national conference, the conference declared that only those societies would be permitted which stood on the tactics of the "modern labour movement." One can hardly regard this formula as sufficiently clear, nor yet the statement of the conference that the "trade unions are the most perfect form of organisation for conducting the struggle of the wage workers organised by trades against the capitalists for the improvement of the conditions of labour," as complete. This caution and vagueness in the formulas are the consequence, on the one hand, of the police conditions and the impossibility of speaking out, and, on the other hand, the undoubtedly great influence of the moderate wing of the Russian social democracy, an influence which was inversely proportional to the progress of the revolution.

The Period of Repression.

From the defeat of the first revolution to the revolution of 1917 the trade union movement, as a mass labour movement, did not exist in Russia. The tsarist government conducted a policy of ruthless extermination of the trade unions. The unions were prohibited from assisting strikers; they were closed down for attempting to intervene in the great strike movement, members of the executives were arrested and exiled to Siberia, funds were confiscated and books taken to the police stations; police were present at all meetings which were closed. down on the slightest pretext, and, very often, without any reason at all. The trade unions were considered dangerous enough for the department of police to issue special circulars and instructions on the way to fight sedition. The iron fist of the victorious, reaction ruthlessly crushed the labour organisations at their birth.

According to the statistics of the Police Department, 104 trade unions were closed down in 1907. The reasons for closing down these unions, as formulated by the Police Department, were: violation of rules, participation of non-members of the union in the management of the union, participation in strikes, attacking employers in the press for dismissing a union member, a boycott by a union branch against a firm and an employee taken on by that firm to replace a dismissed member of the union, a boycott by means of the press against a shopkeeper who refused to employ union men, threatening to boycott an employer and his non-union employees, advocating strikes, activity likely to become a public danger, political unreliability of certain members of the society, participation of members of the executive in political propaganda, organisation of strikes and distribution, of revolutionary manifestoes, carrying resolutions criticising the law of November 15th, 1906, on trade unions, making anti-government speeches at meetings, discovery in dining-room of society of socialist manifestoes, telegram to the second Duma promising to rise in its defence, agitation for the purpose of securing the election of a certain candidate to the State Duma, socialist propaganda, discovery of bombs on the premises of the society, opening of libraries without previously obtaining permission, relations with strike committees led by the Bund, relations with the social-democratic organisations, passing resolutions for celebrating the 1st of May, greeting the social-democratic fraction in the State Duma, convening general meetings without previously obtaining permission, political unreliability of members of the trade union, collecting money by sale of tickets without previous notification, for unknown reasons, etc.

In spite of the police persecution and repression, the reaction could not destroy the trade unions; the dispersed unions would again re-form, maintain connection illegally, and the workers would take advantage of every opportunity to emerge from underground life and conduct their work openly. The first few years after the suppression of the 1905 revolution the trade unions were crushed to such an extent that they almost ceased to show signs of life. But, in 1912 and 1913 there was a boom in the labour movement, the trade unions again revived and the work once again went on feverishly until the beginning of the war. The war for "liberty" began in Russia with the annihilation of the still weak trade unions. Russia entered her second revolution without any trade union organisations.

II. The Revolution of 1917.

The overthrow of tsarism by the workers in revolt was the beginning of the feverish development and growth of the trade unions. While the armed struggle was proceeding in the streets of the capitals and the provincial towns, while the workers were organising their councils of workers' and soldiers' deputies, as pillars of support in their struggle, trade unions were being organised at the same time. On March 15th, 1917, twenty-two trade union boards met in Moscow and created their Council of Trade Unions. At the same time a Council of Trade Unions arose in Petrograd. Simultaneously with the organisations of trade unions according to trade and industry, inter-union organisations were being established which, in the first period of the Russian revolution, bore the name of "Central Bureaux."

The Councils of Workers' Delegates.

The need among the masses for organs to guide them in the economic struggle was so great and the unions were as yet so young and unorganised that the Councils of Workers' Delegates acted side by side with the unions, and often in substitution of them. The overthrow of the autocracy served also as the starting point of a grand economic offensive against the employers. There was not a single industry, not a single factory or large works where the workers from the first days of the revolution did not put forward a number of economic demands such as: increase of wages, reduction of the working day, payment for period of strike, etc. The Councils of Workers' Delegates organised Conciliation Boards, Dispute Committees, Labour Exchanges, established an 8-hour day and adopted repressive measures against employers. In a word, they played a very energetic -part in the economic struggle of the working class.

The Councils of Workers' Delegates, while often taking the initiative in the settlement of economic conflicts, also took the initiative in convening a national conference for the purpose of establishing an All-Russian centre. The first conference of 82 Councils of Workers' and Soldiers' Delegates, which was held at the beginning of April in 1917, in Petrograd, passed a number of resolutions on the question of economic policy. The Conference carried resolutions on general labour policy, an 8-hour day, a minimum wage, freedom of organisation, conciliation boards, labour exchanges, factory inspection, control and organisation of industry, compulsory military service, importation of labour, social insurance and unemployment. All these resolutions bore the imprint of the moderate socialists, who at that time had the overwhelming majority in the Soviets. As the resolution on general labour policy says—"the struggle between labour and capital must conform with the conditions, of an as yet incomplete revolution and the menace of war from without which must define its form." The Conference advocated labour exchanges with equal representation of capital and labour, and declared for government pressure on the employers, thus striving, as far as possible, to smooth over the class antagonism of the first period of the Russian Revolution. In connection with industrial organisation the Conference accepted a resolution in which it called upon the workers energetically to build trade unions, recommended the organisation of local, regional and national organisations and considered it the immediate duty of the trade union movement to convene a national conference of trade unions. The Conference instructed the Department of Labour of the Petrograd Council of Workers' Delegates, together with the central bureaux of Petrograd and Moscow, to convene a national congress of trade unions. On April 17th an organising commission was set up, which sent out representatives to the largest centres ot Russia, and, on June 20th, towards the end of the fourth month of the Russian Revolution, the third national trade union conference met in Petrograd and laid the foundations for the All-Russian Trade Union movement.

Third Trade Union Conference, 1917.

The Third Trade Union Conference, for the first time in the history of Russia, drew together representatives from various parts of this enormous country. At this Conference there were present 220 delegates with power to vote and 27 in a consultative capacity; these represented 967 unions and 51 central bureaux with a total membership of 1,475,249. The business of the Conference was to lay the foundation of an All-Russian centre, to work out a uniform type of organisation, to indicate the general plan of work and to determine a uniform economic policy. The Conference only partly carried out its task, not only because the Russian trade union movement was still too young, but chiefly because the right wing of the socialist parties had the preponderance at the conference. This section led the trade union movement along the same path into which they were directing the general policy of the Russian Republic. Two blocks were competing at the Conference, the left—(the Bolsheviks and Internationalists), and the right—the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries and the Bund. The right block had 15 to 20 more votes than the left. Three questions particularly agitated the working class of Russia—the war, coalition with the bourgeoisie and the control of industry. None of these radical questions of the Russian Revolution were decided at this Conference and in so far as it gave any reply at all to them, that reply was anti-revolutionary. The left block proposed "to condemn every attempt to narrow down and subject the trade union movement to the interest of the ruling classes," to proclaim that the unions "remain foreign to every idea of class conciliation, of any possibility of co-operation with the bourgeoisie of its country," and to declare, in the name of the Conference, that the trade unions will only support that socialist party which will take action for the speediest liquidation of the war by means of a mass revolutionary struggle against the ruling class of its country. All these resolutions of the left block were rejected by the Conference as well as a resolution proposing to commence an energetic campaign for workers' control. Workers' control was understood as a strict subordination of the employers to organs of state regulation in which the majority is guaranteed to the labour organisations, and the granting to the factory committees the right of appointing controlling commissions to check and stop decisions and measures of the factory administration. Why did the Conference reject the proposals of the left block? Because the majority of the Conference held the view that it was the duty of the working class to seek agreement with the advanced sections of the bourgeoisie and, in order to secure this agreement, the greatest caution was necessary in handling questions affecting fundamental capitalist relations. The Conference declared for increased taxation of the profit-making class, tor the standardisation of prices of important articles, for control of industry, for direct State control in the most important branches of industry, for the strict control of banks, for compulsory State centralisation of industry, for the reorganisation of government regulating bodies and for securing in these a predominance of representatives of revolutionary democracy. But the Conference found it necessary to emphasise the fact that "the process of this control is too difficult and complicated for the proletariat to undertake the entire or even the greater part of this control." From this it follows that "the proletariat must not take upon itself alone the responsibility for the progress and outcome of the struggle with the economic disorganisation of the country, and that it is necessary to do everything possible to attract all the productive classes of the population to the solution of the economic problems confronting the country." These vague formul sufficiently show the desire of the majority of the Conference to continue the coalition with the bourgeoisie so "happily" commenced from the first days of the February revolution.

In spite of the theoretically incorrect light thrown by the third Conference on these questions and the bias towards coalition, this Conference played an important role in the unification of the trade unions of the whole of Russia. The Conference advocated the industrial principle of organisation, decided on the subordinatipn of the factory committees to the union, passed a number of resolutions on female labour, unemployment, conciliation boards, industrial courts, labour secretariats, factory inspection, municipal policy of the trade unions, national sections, educational activity, proletarian co-operative societies, trade union press, 8-hour day, and, finally, established an All-Russian centre of the Trade Union movement: the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions. Much in, these resolutions is incorrect; as, for instance, when the Conference advocated joint labour exchanges, participation of the unions in the establishment of an unemployment fund instead of State insurance against unemployment; but, nevertheless, these resolutions were of tremendous importance tor the Russian Trade Union movement, because whether good or bad, they gave a certain summing up of the economic struggle and because they were the first resolutions of a real All-Russian Conference.

The Economic Struggle Reopens.

The Third Conference, while stating a number of economic problems, failed to indicate a most vital thing, viz., how to put these resolutions into practice and, at the same time, maintain a cautious attitude towards the other "productive classes" of Russia. In the meantime the Russian bourgeoisie, thrown into confusion in the first weeks of the February revolution, and retreating before the sudden pressure of the working masses, rapidly began to organise and seized the most important strategic points in the class struggle—the government institutions and the State machinery. Before the Revolution the Russian bourgeoisie was excellently organised, the manufacturers' Societies, the Chambers of Commerce, Manufacturers' Councils, Bankers' Councils, Syndicates, trusts, etc., all these were created long before the Revolution and all these were put into use against the workers from the very first days of the February Revolution. The economic battle surged round questions like those of taking on and dismissal of workers, 8-hour day, sickness insurance funds, increase in wages, rights of the factory committees; and their control over factory administrations. Making concessions in politics, agreeing to the most democratic electoral rights and the proclamation of all liberties, the bourgeoisie, with all the greater energy, fought every inch of the ground for their economic rights and privileges. Not being able to defeat the proletariat in open battle, the bourgeoisie commenced a policy which, in Russia, accquired the name of sabotage, the essence of which consisted in deliberately disorganising factories and other undertakings for the purpose of driving the workers to starvation. The revolutionary introduction of an 8-hour day roused the mad hatred of the employers, but, nevertheless, they were compelled to reconcile themselves to this. But under no circumstances could they reconcile themselves to the appointment and dismissal of workers by the factory committees and the control of factories. On the outcome of the struggle they staked their all. This was a violation of the most fundamental right of the employers and the sharpest conflicts during the course of the first period of the Russian Revolution revolved round the question as to who was the master of the factory. The employers were led by the metal works owners. In vain did the Provisional Government, in the sharpest period of the social conflict, attempt to reconcile the hostile sides. When the Minister for Trade and Industry asked the representatives of the management of the Bogolovsky Mining region (Ural) where a conflict was proceeding between the workers and the administration, whether the management were willing to dismiss employees and workers through the conciliation boards, the representative of the employers, Zeidler, declared that "the management does not and will not recognise any committee or board; it is the master of the works and therefore will do as it desires. As to the State Public Control the industrialists do not and will not recognise any such thing." The metal works owners were not alone in this aggressive attitude towards the workers. The union of Baku petroleum owners declared that the masters would never agree to the hiring and dismissing of workers through the factory committees. The same declaration was made by the union of the united industries of the central industrial regions, who would not even permit the thought that the textile workers could control the uncrowned cloth kings. The attitude of the mine owners' union of the South of Russia and other employers' organisation was no less stern against the "criminal claims" of the workers.