The Building Guild Movement

Désarmement

The Building Guild Movement written by James Thomas Gunn

A Canadian Conference in Physics

From The Canadian Forum, February 1921, p. 138

In spite of Housing Acts and building schemes, the fact remains that there is still a large number of houses required in this and other large cities of the Province. Various reasons are assigned for this situation, amongst them being that of abnormally high wages paid in the building trades, a factor which, it is claimed, deters private enterprise from building houses. It is urged, therefore, that the workers are responsible in some measure for the shortage of homes. This seems strange when we realize that those who suffer most the lack of houses are the members of the working class and that plenty of capital seems available for the purpose of building theatres, moving picture houses, and other buildings that are more or less in the luxury class and not so urgent as homes. Many ideas have been suggested in order to find a way out of the housing muddle and one of them is that of the Building Guild Movement. This idea has its inspiration from the Guild Socialist Movement and became translated from theory into fact in the City of Manchester, England, early in 1920, largely through the activities of Mr. S. G. Hobson, one of the pioneer Guildsmen.

As a result the Manchester Building Guild is doing the following contracts for the municipalities mentioned, which have been accepted and sanctioned by the Ministry of Health in Great Britain; Manchester, 100 houses: Worsley, 261 houses; Bedwellty, 100 houses; Tredeger, 100 houses; Wigan, 135 houses; Rotherham, 200 houses; Wilmslow, 100 houses; Halifax, 200 houses. In addition, the following are accepted and awaiting sanction: — Ross, 50 houses; Trowbridge, 80 houses; Lewis, 230 houses; Mexboro, 44 houses; Altringham, 50 houses; Colne, 56 houses; Bowden, 24 houses; Bucklow, 24 houses; Alderly, 28 houses; Ashton-under-Lyne, 150 houses; Stroud, 20 houses; Glasgow, 246 houses; Whitby, 1 hospital. Negotiations are proceeding for further contracts at Salford, Middlesboro', Royston, Mansfield, Woodhouse, Bredbury, Romley, Ipswich, Lincoln, Doncaster, and Wombwell.

The London Building Guild, a similar body, has taken shape under the guidance of A. J. Penty, a member of the Institute of Architects and author of the Restoration of the Guild System^[1]. It has secured a contract for 380 houses at Walthamstow, another one at Greenwich, while negotiations are in progress at Hammersmith, Islington and other centres. What, then, is this movement that seems practicable and has been described as the most vital and constructive of the newer labor movements; that forms one of the biggest constructive developments ever made in trade union policy? It is the active co-operation of the workers, technicians and supervisors in the building industry, for the purpose of service to the community in the building of houses, with the profit element eliminated. It is operated through a partnership between the community and the workers by which the community through its legislative bodies shall supply the finance and credit, and the guild shall supply the labour, supervision, design and skill and by means of this partnership, it is claimed, good houses can be built for the consumers cheaper than by private enterprise, and only by this method can sufficient houses be built quickly and efficiently.

We, in this country, faced with the same conditions of shortage, may thoughtfully inquire if this idea can be applied here. In March, 1920, the Building Trades Council of Toronto suggested to the City Council that a partnership be formed between the City Council, representing the consumer, and the Building Trades Council, representing the [p. 139] Building Unions, for the purpose of doing what Manchester was doing, and high hopes were entertained that a solution had been found for the housing problem in Toronto. The Building Trades Council agreed to guarantee the labour required and suggested that the City Council, through its purchasing department, secure the material necessary for housing construction, and through its architectural department supply the designing and supervisory ability for the work. In that way it was felt that with the prestige of the city purchasing supplies, exorbitant prices would be avoided and discrimination against the guild in its materials stopped. It was also believed that if the city supplied the supervision and architectural ability, minor positions such as foreman could be filled from lists supplied by the Building Trades Council and, with the power of dismissal remaining in the control of the city, a sufficient check against loafing and loose discipline on the job would be exercised. At the same time the fact that foremen were appointed from lists supplied by the workers' organization formed a sufficient check against their appointment by civic or political pull, and in this way the guild would have a degree of self-government in itself yet sufficient precautions had been taken to prevent anyone coming in who desired to make the plan a failure.

It did not come to fruition for several reasons, among them being the opposition of private enterprise in the building industry, the luke-warm support of civic officialism, an apathy among the rank and file of the building unions, and the conservative attitude adopted towards it by some of the building trades leaders. One would have thought that it ought to have been obvious to the workers that such an idea gives them at least the first steps in industrial democracy. Had it been adopted we would have seen the working out of an experiment with important consequences to Labour in Canada and to the building trades workers in particular. It would have given them the creative zest that accompanies production for service and, if it was successful in its first contract, others could have been arranged with provisions like those in the Manchester contracts whereby unemployment through wet weather and unavoidable causes becomes a charge upon the industry, with each guild worker guaranteed a regular weekly wage, thus beginning a higher status in the industry; and with the removal of the bugbear unemployment, a far higher standard of efficiency and craftsmanship would almost inevitably result. But it would have had other important results. We would have seen credit based upon ability to produce and not upon financial control; though upon analysis financial control, as long as it holds the good will of labour, is ability to produce, but if the workers refuse to produce for private capital or if they undertake to produce by their own efforts for the community then the basis of credit may shift from private capital to labour and this would have very important consequences. It is assumed here that credit is supplied by the community; still it is possible that the community may receive that credit from the banks so that finance would still have ultimate control. Even if this were the case one factor in house production is removed, that of profit, and the creation of community reserves of credit would remove the other. Can we hope the idea can be revived? I think we can. Since it was first mooted, the rank and file of the building workers here have given it considerable thought and some indications of their minds may be seen in the demand of the local painters for a Building Trades Parliament, similar to that existing in England, and which is coloured and motived largely by the guild spirit. The conservative attitude of some of the union officers is crumbling in face of the growing spirit of service amongst the rank and file. The chief lions in the path are opposition from private enterprise, the lukewarm support or veiled opposition of civic officialism, and possibly some legal difficulties.

The latter difficulty the Manchester Building Guild overcame by forming themselves into a small joint stock Company with nominal shares for each worker of 25 cents under the non-profit clause of the Companies' Act, thus becoming a legal entity. It might be necessary to take that step if the plan was revived again. The other difficulties are harder obstacles to get over, but if we can successfully combat them then I think there is no reason why we cannot see the guild in operation. I would urge then those who believe that the motive of service is the best motive for the community; who believe in freedom and self-government in social and industrial life; who believe that this can best be attained in a functionally democratic society, and that it can be attained only by including in workers' organizations technicians, supervisors, and salariat, to do all in their power to develop the guild idea. Then I think we may see the workman become once again a master of his craft; and the community may get the houses which it so sorely needs.

James T. Gunn

1 Wikinote: The correct title was The Restoration of the Gild System.