영국사에 대한 새 전망 : 연구논문 ; 19세기 말 런던 부두의 고용 구조와 신조합의 성격 변화

남미전 ( Mi Jeon Nam ) 영국사학회 2005 영국연구 Vol.14 No.-

Thanks to the surplus of labor forces, the London Dock could make most of its works fully dependent on manual labourers even till the late 19th century. For those labourers, employment security was always a critical issues. Especially dockers keenly competed with each other to be employed. As they made efforts for ensuring employment, dockers come to have their own internal characteristics which in turn were long kept among themselves. Conflicts and contradictions brought by such keen competition among dockers led to the London Dock Strike in 1889. The Dock Strike promoted the emergence of the New Unionism (hereinafter referred to as New Unions) which sought towards a General Union. Led by Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Laborers` Union of Great Britain and Ireland (hereinafter referred to as Dockers` Union), the New Unions extended its forces into many different industries, playing a critical role in organizing unskilled labourers. But the New Unions gave up its General Union policy since 1893, and almost returned to old unions it once criticized. So far, structures of docker employment have been just mentioned as a part of discussing poor conditions of dock work or recognized as one of conflicts between dockers and their employers that may lead to the Dock Strike by the dockers. Main issues of studies about the New Unions have been backgrounds behind which the union emerged and the significance of the organization in the history of labor movement. Previous discussions about the cause of the abandonment of General Union policy by the New Unions focused mainly on external changes of the late 19th century and the fluidity of casual labourers themselves. There`s another reason why the New Unions abandoned its General Union policy on a continuum that ran from the employment structure of dockers to their the Dock strike and to the emergence of New Unions. It should be noted that the New Unions gave up its General Union policy because of not only external, but also internal factors. The abandonment was not just a result from active measures by employers or coping with structural changes in the then British economy. Besides such measures or coping, there was another important reason of the abandonment. Dockers` Union was a major part of the New Unions. It may be no doubt that internal characteristics of the dockers affected changes in policies of the New Unions. Thus it is important to clarify how Dockers` Union affected the New Unions by investigating characteristics of dockers. In the late 19th century, timber and grain porters of the London dock were classified as skilled labourers who could exert their own vested rights in relation to employment. At that time, permanent labourers of the dock were relatively secure in employment. The London dock had a pre-modern employment structure under which jobs were transmitted or, otherwise, allocated by persons having rights to employ in their discretion. These contradictory job conditions provoked exclusive characteristics of dockers and further conflicts among them. Dissatisfied about such conditions, the dockers rallied Dock Strike, bringing changes to the dock itself. The Dock Strike brought all labourers of the dock to be united once. But the labourers were disrupted and conflicted with each other as they face problems such as increase in the number of casual labourers, unstable employment and poverty brought by British economic crisis since 1890. Under these circumstances, the leadership of Dockers` Union tried to keep the matter of employment security as one of their vested rights and take exclusive rights in relation to their specialized work, resulting in the abandonment of General Union policy by the New Unions. A major part of the New Unions was Dockers` Union whose internal characteristics undoubtedly played a critical role in changing policies of the old unions. Employment security is always a key concern to all labourers. Under various external changes in the late 19th cen

19세기 말 런던의 부두 노동력

남미전(Nam Mi-Jeon) 부산경남사학회 2004 역사와 경계 Vol.53 No.-

To consider in detail the nature of casual labour as the essence of dock labour, it is important to investigate how dockers exist in terms of job and employment types. This may not only help determine characteristics of dock labour itself, but also play an important role in forming dock union-management relations. The labour processes of the London Dock were already numerously divided. Discrimination between skilled and unskilled labourers in<br/> relation to dock labour was made in accordance with several factors such as skills and knowledge and social, economic and moral perceptions. Above all, knowledge and skills had to be obtained to become skilled labourers. In the London Dock, there were no formal,<br/> clear procedures through which people could be skilled labourers. Persons who wanted to make themselves skilled labourers of the dock, had to use an irrational, exclusive employment system involving heredity, entreaty or tribes. After the general strike of the London Dock in 1889, the New Unionism was formed. They abandoned what was initially regraded as a nature of general union. This may be explained by the fact that the labour force of the London Dock in the late 19th century accepted and reflected social changes of the period. In the late 19th century, Britain had an economic situation that could not ensure the stability of employment. Such situation played a critical role in making the New Unionism, which initially sought to be a general union, change into a closed organization. Such change was not merely an reaction against changes in external environments including national economic crisis. It was probably a consequence of fundamental and structural contradictions that had been existed in the dock. The clear discrimination among dockers prevented the New Unionism from maintaining itself as a general union under which all of the dockers were united. The initially formed union could not avoid giving up a position as a general union as they could not overcome its limitations under the combination of its internal, structural contradictions and the national economic crisis of the late 19th century.

스코틀랜드 어퍼 클라이드 조선소(Upper Clyde Shipbuilders) 노동자 자주관리(work-in)의 의미

남미전(Nam, Mi-Jeon) 부산경남사학회 2014 역사와 경계 Vol.91 No.-

UCS는 1968년에 어퍼 클라이드에 있던 5개의 주요한 조선소의 컨소시엄으로 형성되었다. 그러나 UCS는 초기의 의도와 달리 지속적인 이윤을 거의 창출하지 못했다. 결국 정부도 더 이상의 지원을 거부하며, 1971년 6월 중순부터 UCS는 사실상 청산작업에 들어갔다. UCS 청산작업이 구체화되면서 작업장이 폐쇄될 위기에 놓이자 노동자들이 선택한 방법이 바로 ‘노동자 자주관리(work-in)’였다. UCS 노동자들은 작업장 폐쇄를 막기 위해 파업을 하거나 시위를 하는 대신 그들 스스로 작업장을 점유하고 작업을 지속시키고자 했다. 노동자 자주관리에 참가한 인원은 전체 고용인 수를 기준으로 보았을 때, 극히 적은 부분에 불과하다. 그러나 단순히 드러난 참가율만으로 노동자 자주관리의 실효성을 논하는 것은 한계가 있다. 참가 인원을 떠나 참가한 노동자들에 의해 지속적으로 작업이 이루어졌다는 것이 중요하다. 노동자 자주관리가 지속되는 동안 지지 메시지와 성금이 영국 전역에서 그리고 캐나다, 네덜란드, 프랑스, 오스트레일리아, 뉴질랜드에서 전해졌다. 노동자 자주관리에서 관심을 끄는 또 다른 사항은 노동자 자주관리를 주도한 노조 지도부의 핵심 인물들이 공산당 당원이었다는 것이다. 그러나 굳이 노동자 자주관리에서 사상적 영향력을 찾고자 한다면, 노조 지도부를 구성했던 공산당의 구좌파적이라기 보다는 구좌파를 비판하며 ‘민중에게 권력을’을 주장하던 신좌파적인 것이었다. 물론 UCS 노동자들이 신좌파에서 주장하는 것처럼 생산수단을 포함한 제반 부문에 관한 자주관리를 통해 실질적인 권력 획득에 완전히 성공하지는 못했지만 노동자 자주관리를 통해 기존의 노동운동과는 구별되는 그들의 단합된 힘과 의지를 분명히 보여준 것만은 사실이다. UCS에서 진행된 노동자 자주관리는 노동자들의 노동권에 대한 정부의 권위적이고 일방적인 태도가 보다 신중해져야 한다는 경고를 남겼다. 그리고 노동계에는 노동운동이 나아갈 새로운 방향, 자본주의체제 하에서 노동자들의 권리는 어디까지 확보 받을 수 있는가의 문제, 노동조합 지도부의 성향과 자질 문제 등에 관한 여러 논의를 제기시켰다. UCS was formed in 1968 as a consortium of 5 main shipyards of Upper Clyde. However, UCS produced hardly any profit despite it’s initial intent. Government refused further support. UCS had gone into practical liquidation since around the middle of June, 1971. Workers could not leave the yards although the yards was about to be closed as liquidation of USC was brought into shape. The method chosen in such state was work-in. UCS workers occupied themselves and tried to continue building ships, instead of going on a strike or a demonstration. UCS workers showed by their action that they didn’t want to leave their yards. Workers participating in work-in was only a small portion. However discussing the effectiveness of the work-in with only considering participation rate is limited. It is important that the workers continued to work, not the number of participants. After work-in had started, donations and messages of support for the work-in was conveyed from all parts of UK, Canada, Netherlands, France, Australia, and New Zealand in the first 10 days since work-in had started. Another interesting point of the work-in was there were several Communist Party members who participated. Reid, Airlie, Barr, who were the leaders of the union, were also members of Communist Party. And International Socialists influenced them. However, rather than ideological intent or discussion of union leadership, more realistic and life-related problem sympathized with workers. And that was the force that enables work-in to proceed more than a year in opposition to the powerful liquidation policy of the government. To choose ideological influence to work-in, it is not the former left which made up the union leadership, but the new left which criticized old left and insisted ‘power to the people’. Work-in at UCS cautioned against that government should treat workers in more prudent way, not in authoritative and unilateral way. And work-in raised several discussions to the labour world; A new direction of the labour movement, Worker’s rights under the capitalist system, disposition and qualities of the union leadership.

1919년 글래스고의 노동시간 단축 파업

남미전(Nam, Mi-Jeon) 부산경남사학회 2020 역사와 경계 Vol.117 No.-

1919년 1월 글래스고에서는 제1차 세계대전 이후 산업현장에 흡수될 제대군인들의 고용 기회를 늘리기 위해 주 40시간으로 노동시간 단축을 요구하는 파업이 진행되었다. 파업은 비공식적인 노조 연합이었던 클라이드 노동자 위원회를 중심으로 전개되었다. 1월 27일 시작된 파업에는 탈숙련화 정책에 저항하던 글래스고의 다양한 부문의 노동자들이 참가했다. 노동시간 단축에 대한 요구는 파업이전부터 산업, 그리고 노동의 특성에 따라 달랐다. 그러나 합동 파업 위원회의 논의 끝에 주 40시간으로 결론이 났다. 주 40시간 단축을 위해 파업 위원회는 글래스고 시장에게 정부와 중재에 나서 줄 것을 요구했다. 정부의 대답을 듣기 위해 1월 31일에 계획된 시위는 정부의 강경한 탄압에 직면했고, 일명 ‘피의 금요일 사건’으로 불리게 되었다. 이 사건 이후 파업은 성과 없이 실패로 끝났다. 노동시간 단축 파업은 산업 부문의 다양성과 노동자들 간의 노동 여건의 현실적 차이를 극복할 수 없었다. 그리고 파업은 붉은 클라이드사이드 시기에 주요한 사건으로 언급되지만, 파업 지도부의 다수를 차지하던 사회주의적 성향과 실업 방지를 위해 노동시간 단축을 원하던 노동자들의 현실적인 요구 사이에는 간격이 컸다. 그럼에도 불구하고 노동시간 단축 파업을 통해 글래스고 노동자들이 얻게된 경험은 이후 노동운동과 정치적 발전에서 중요한 의미를 갖는 것은 분명하다. In January 1919, in Glasgow, a strike to demand reducing the working week to 40-hours was taken part to increase employment opportunities for war veterans who would be demobilised and absorbed into the industrial sites after the termination of World War I. Clyde Workers’ Committee, which was an informal trade union coalition, led the strike. The strike began on January 27, involving workers from a variety of work fields of Glasgow who stood against labour dilution. The demands for the reduction of working hours were different before the strike, depending on the characteristic of the industry and labour. However, after discussions and considerations, the Joint Strike Committee concluded that the 40 hours of the working week was apposite. To achieve the reduction of working hours, the Joint Strike Committee demanded the mayor of Glasgow to arbitrate between the government and the committee. On January 31, the strikers that congregated to hear the response of the government faced harsh repression by the government, the so-called “Bloody Friday” incident. After the confrontation, the strike ended in failure, yielded definite results. The strike for the reduction of working hours could not overcome the practical differences in the diversity of the industry and the working conditions among workers. Although the strike is mentioned as a major event during the Red Clydeside, there was a large gap between the socialist majority of the strike committee leadership and the workers demanding the reduction of working hours for practical reasons such as unemployment. Nevertheless, it is clear that the experience of the Glasgow workers thought the working hour reduction strike has important implications for later labour movements and political development.

19세기 말 런던 부두노동자의 임시노동 실태

남미전 ( Mi Jeon Nam ) 대구사학회 2007 대구사학 Vol.88 No.-