pen-l veterans will recall that I have been harping on the dubiousness of the so-called lump-of-labor fallacy for over a decade. Well, I've finally drilled down to the bottom of the well and found the source of the fallacy claim in the testimony of Peter Ewart to the 1833 Royal Commission on Employment of Children in Factories and the retelling of the argument by the commission examiner, E.C. Tufnell in an anti-union propaganda tract. Further context is available at http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/02/april-fools.html
It was in an 1834 pamphlet, *Character, Object and Effects of Trades' Unions * by Edward Carleton Tufnell, Esq., an assistant Poor Law commissioner, that the fallacy claim really came into its own. Tufnell made no secret of his abhorrence of trade unions, "Were we asked to give a definition of a Trades' Union, we should say that it was a Society whose constitution is the worst of democracies — whose power is based on outrage — whose practice is tyranny — and whose end is self destruction." The pamphlet was "published anonymously -- there is reason to believe at the instance and at the cost of the Whig Government [Sidney and Beatrice Webb, *History of Trade Unionism*]." Tufnell, who had been appointed to a Royal Commission charged with investigating the condition of children employed in factories (and derailing Parliamentary progress<http://books.google.ca/books?id=y04KAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA146&dq=ten-hours+bill+shaftesbury&hl=en&ei=bAxOTcHyH4e4sAPEvbXaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false>on the Ten-hour Bill), took aim at the alleged "secret motives" underlying support for the factory legislation from the Manchester Cotton Spinners Union: The Union calculated, that had the Ten-hour Bill passed, and all the present factories worked one-sixth less time, one-sixth more mills would have been built to supply the deficient production. The effect of this, as they fancied, would have been to cause a fresh demand for workmen ; and hence, those out of employ would have been prevented from draining the pockets of those now in work, which would render their wages really as well as nominally high. Here we have the secret source of nine-tenths of the clamour for the Ten-hour Factory Bill, and we assert, with the most unlimited confidence in the accuracy of our statement, that the advocacy of that Bill amongst the workmen, was neither more nor less than a trick to raise wages—a trick, too, of the clumsiest description ; since it is quite plain, that no legislative enactment, whether of ten or any other number of hours could possibly save it from signal failure. Tufnell's tale can be traced back one final step, to the testimony<http://books.google.ca/books?id=cW9bAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA37&dq=%22what+do+you+suppose+to+be+the+chief+motive+for+the+operatives%22&hl=en&ei=VBhOTfmVKY_msQP-x4zMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false>to the Royal Commission on the Employment of Children in Factories given by Peter Ewart, master cotton spinner and weaver of Manchester, examined by... Mr. Tufnell. What do you suppose to be the chief motive for the operatives here advocating the Ten-Hour Bill? Many of them expect to receive the same wages for ten hours as they now receive for twelve. The mule-spinners earning high- wages appear to be almost the only class of workpeople in this quarter who are in favour of a ten-hour bill. Many of that class have been thrown out of employment in consequence of their combinations to keep up nominal high wages. Their earnings are greatly encroached upon by the contributions they are compelled to make for the support of those who are unemployed, and they imagine that if the hours of work are to be limited to ten, new mills must be built to supply the diminished quantity of yarn, and that the unemployed hands which they now have to support will then be employed in these new-erected mills. This expectation is obviously fallacious, as the cost of yarn and cloth produced would be so much increased by the same expence of fixed capital falling on a smaller quantity that the demand cannot be expected to continue, especially as we have to meet the competition of foreigners who are working longer hours, and at much lower charges. This circumstance of unemployed hands being supported by those who are employed occurs in all cases where wages are kept up by combinations, and is especially exemplified in the case of the combination of London journeymen tailors, who have been more persevering and successful, I believe, than any other. Their nominal high wages bring numerous applicants for work, and those who have work have such heavy contributions to pay to support those who are out of work, (lest they should offer to work under the combination prices,) and the costs of their houses of call and other establishments, and of paid officers for enforcing their combinations, are so large, that they carry little of their earnings home, and it is understood that but few families in London are more miserable at their homes than those of the journeymen tailors. Tufnell's themes of secret motives, outrage, tyranny and folly became the touchstones for denouncing -- at times demonizing -- trade unions and the template for the emerging lump-of-labor fallacy claim. -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
