“No right to relieve a striker”: Trade Disputes and the Politics of Work and Family in the 1920s

Abstract

In May 1926, the Trades Union Congress, the national organization of trade unions in Britain, called for a general strike in support of the Miners’ Federation dispute with employers, who sought to reduce wages and increase hours. The General Strike lasted nine days, during which time much of Britain’s transport and industrial base was shut down.1 Anticipating the large numbers of resulting relief applicants, the Stourbridge Board of Guardians held a special meeting to discuss strategies relative to the strike. The County Express reported that a “crowd of several hundred people gathered in the vicinity of the [poor law] institution” on the day of the meeting, and the board had about 900 applications for assistance. When the Reverend C.D. Banks-Gale asked how the board was going to handle applications from the men on strike, the clerk answered “that the Guardians were not dealing with the strikers at all, but with their wives and families.”2 As its minutes recorded, the Board of Guardians resolved “that the applications of strikers be considered as for, and on behalf of, the wives and children.”3 Two months later, with the General Strike over but the miners’ strike continuing, the Board of Guardians still faced “emergency circumstances.” In response to a complaint by a deputation of miners that the relief offered to strikers’ families was inadequate, the board noted that the law tied its hands.