Preliminary Programme

The purpose of the paper is to analyze which individuals who decided to join a mutual aid society, and the relations between the trade unions, employers, and mutual aid societies in early 20th century Sweden. The database that will be used for the quantitative analysis of this paper is based on the primary material of a statistical survey of the Swedish printing industry by Kommerskollegium (The Swedish National Board of Trade) between 1902 and 1904. The material consists of data on individual workers, factories, and also data collected from the mutual aid societies that provided insurance against sickness absence and funeral costs to the workers of the printing industry. The dataset consist of 7859 workers (1990 women), 326 factories, and 29 mutual aid societies. The Swedish printing industry has previously been suggested to be a good setting for studying health related problems for industrial workers (Olsson, 1986). The workers were well paid, and enjoyed a high social status among working men, but although their health status was as high as other industrial workers when they entered the trade, their life expectancy was significantly lower. The organizations that provided insurance against sickness and funeral costs were affiliated to trade unions, employers, temperance promoting organizations or independent organizations. The aim of the paper is to investigate which workers that joined mutual aid societies, and the relations between memberships of the different types of organizations. (Show less)

British agricultural labourers between 1890 and 1930 have interested few historians, and those who studied them mostly opted for either a romantic, passive, conservative view or else a firmly Marxist tone of incipient class war, views which are hard to reconcile. In northern England industrial competition led farmers to continue hiring many paid employees on traditional yearly or half-yearly service contracts, which were arranged at hiring fairs. Regional demand for food ensured that northern agriculture remained prosperous and expansionist down to the 1920s, employing very large numbers of farm workers at wages that were often twice as high as those paid in stereotypically rural counties of the south.

Northern agriculture and patterns of urbanisation were also both very diverse, and the reliance on farm servants varied from almost total in Northumberland to virtually none in south Lancashire. The actual terms of contracts also varied from area to area, but overall half of northern farmworkers may have been hired as servants at fairs. The argument here is that far from being either an archaic institution or else a sort of slave market, northern farm servants were able to use them both to drive up wages and to build cultural solidarity as a clearly-defined group within northern society. Sometimes they were combined with conventional trade unionism, but often they substituted for it, not due to opposition or indifference to combination but out of a well-grounded sense that the fairs did a better job for them at no cost. Farmers also perceived clear and practical gains from participating, so the undoubted difference in their basic interests was generally (but not always) kept out of sight by this highly effective bargaining framework.

The fairs were also not embedded in localism, but actually formed a remarkably coherent and articulated network which covered most of the north, and which unconsciously adjusted wages and the local supply of labour in line with economic conditions with the full consent of all participants. Oral testimony and extensive newspaper reporting both prove that they actively flourished well into the 1920s, despite assertions from most historians that they were either already defunct in 1890, or else were in steep decline after 1890. When the interwar depression ruined many farmers wages declined sharply and fairs lost ground, but they were still operating in 1939 and despite a surge of trade unionism, there was no sense that they should be swept away to free workers from ancient shackles. (Show less)

The firm of Cadbury retains a powerful hold on peoples’ imagination. This was vividly demonstrated during the Kraft takeover of 2009/10. The press and media covered events daily, and there were lively exchanges in the ’letters’ pages of local newspapers. There were even demonstrations. This hold on the public imagination has a long history.
Many Cadbury commentators concentrate their attention on paternalism (but not all ), using this as the main criterion by which to judge and make sense of the company. Paternalism provides much insight, but only provides part of the story.
The purpose of this paper is to return to Edward Cadbury, the chronicler and publicist for the firm. It was Edward who was the main initiator of the labour management approach that came to represent the company early in the 20th C, and it was this managerial approach that generated the sense of loyalty and devotion that still exists today.
Previous commentators have given too little attention to the historical context, and in particular the influence of British Quakerism. Significant change occurred in British Quakerism during Edward’s time, and this had more than a passing impact on Edward’s generation.
Paternalism and welfare management continue to remain important ideas that help us make sense of labour management in the Cadbury company. But a deeper exploration of the Quaker influence adds to our understanding. There is a clear spiritual dimension arising from Edward’s Quakerism, and this suggests something of a covenantal relationship in the workplace.
Edward Cadbury authored and co-authored, three significant books, and a close reading of these texts goes some way towards tracing the trajectory of his development as a manager. The spiritual influence is current in all three. For Edward as a Quaker, all of life was sacramental, and as such he wouldn’t divide his personal beliefs from his working life.
A covenantal relationship is difficult to define, but a contemporary American Quaker, Doug Gwyn, has provided some help:

“Covenant is a web of faithful, accountable relationships as complex and polymorphous as capitalism itself – even more so. It does not simply shrug off the people, values, and species that find no value in the market, but insists that there be room for everyone......Rediscovering covenant begins with seeing through the contractual culture that surrounds us.”

Although Edward Cadbury used different language, he would have subscribed to the description. Workplace practice in the Cadbury firm was by no means perfect, but there is evidence that Edward saw through “the contractual culture that surrounds us.” (Show less)