I’ve just been doing some research into guilds and their history and it has been interesting reading. It also seems to be a resurgent topic in labour relations discussions. A few interesting background articles can be found here:
http://ccs.mit.edu/21C/21CWP004.html
http://www.linezine.com/5.2/articles/rlgatfol.htm
http://www.islam.co.za/awqafsa/sorce/library/Article%2014.htm
http://typaldos.com/word.documents/profguilds/
In a nutshell, in the old days a guild was set up by people sharing a common trade or profession. The guild would then set standards and approve who could work in that trade in their area. They also controlled wages, working hours, quality control and prices. In a lot of ways, the guilds were the forerunner of today’s unions — they were even the originators of the ‘closed shop’. A significant characteristic of the guild was the rank structure, to start you were an apprentice from which you graduated to journeyman and then had the opportunity to become a master. As the guilds grew in size and power they fell victim to politics and corruption which, combined with a “we don’t like anything new unless we thought of it” mentality was the biggest contributor to their downfall.
The modern view of guilds seems to lean more towards the organisation taking on some of the responsibilities which have been assumed by the state but applied to ‘mobile’ workers, i.e. those outside a corporate structure.
The question is, what do we think a guild should be and how do we think it should operate?
Should it be what unions used to be, or were the unions ever what we thought they were? Unions were born in a time of exploitation in order to obtain fair conditions for the workers when the laws were all geared towards the employer/landowner. By their very nature they are confrontational and they achieved their objectives. But has their time passed? It appears these days that they are more about the personality in charge than the welfare of the members. It is true that some of their operations in the recent past (last 40 years) have done more harm than good in terms of both wrecking industries which eliminated jobs and allowing governments to introduce legislation which turns the clock back towards exploitation.
Should it be taking on some of the responsibilities which have been assumed by the government? This modern train of thought tends more to the American workplace than ours as it refers to healthcare, unemployment insurance and pensions. But just looking at the fiasco that is pensions in this country, we could be well on our way to needing the same things.
Should it be an organisation which just sets standards, co-ordinates and ratifies training bodies to meet such standards and represents its membership in dealings with outside bodies such as legislative and media organisations.
Or should it be a mixture of all the above?
A guild is one of those organisational types which claim to be run by its members. Before even considering setting up a guild, the prospective members have to decide what they want it to be and how they want it to operate. That means questions and suggestions being put into open forum and discussed until an agreement is reached.
A further characteristic of the old guilds was as a place to share ideas, thoughts, advice and social gathering. We already have this part, it’s called TruckNetUK.
Mal asked a sincere and serious question, “what’s in it for me?”. He received a flippant and non-constructive reply which doesn’t help the general discussion. It was a valid question on which rests the viability of any organisation which claims to represent drivers. My first response would be to direct you to Coffeholic’s post which, I think, speaks volumes.
Ah well, enough for now
Jules
