Aid for Workers and Attempts to reach a Settlement

• By early September 1913, it became evident that the Dublin strike and lockout would be prolonged. The strike, initiated by the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union (ITGWU), involved about 100,000 people, including the strikers' families.

  

• Initially, the strikers' only income was the strike pay provided by the ITGWU, but the union lacked the financial resources to support such a large-scale strike indefinitely.

• The strike caused severe hardship for many families, who faced the prospect of starvation and were forced to sell their few possessions.

• The Lord Mayor of Dublin raised over £6,000 to aid the families of the strikers, though only £2,000 came from public donations; the rest was provided by Catholic Church bishops.

• Additionally, the charity organisation St. Vincent de Paul aided many families. Despite these efforts, it was clear that the union needed external support to sustain the strike.

• Appeals for assistance were made to British trade unions, represented by the Trade Union Congress (TUC).

• Although reluctant to directly participate in the strike, British unions provided significant financial support. Thousands of British workers donated to a strike fund, raising over £100,000 by the time the strike ended. British unions also sent ships with food to support the strikers and their families.

• Liberty Hall, the ITGWU headquarters, became a central hub for distributing food parcels, with large food kitchens set up under the supervision of Countess Markievicz. The substantial support from British trade unions allowed the strike to continue longer than it otherwise might have.

Attempts to Reach a Settlement

• By the end of September 1913, the British government intervened to attempt to resolve the escalating dispute.
• A board of inquiry was established to hear the grievances of both employers and strikers. Deep social divisions between workers and employers and concerns about the economic impact on Dublin due to the ongoing lockout prompted this action.
• James Larkin represented the workers at the inquiry, while Home Rule MP Tim Healy represented the employers.
• The board criticised the unions' use of sympathetic strikes—strikes by workers not directly involved in the dispute to support those who were—but acknowledged that the workers' grievances were legitimate.
• The inquiry concluded that the employers' ultimatum, which required workers to sign an anti-union pledge, was unreasonable.
• A compromise was suggested to end the strike:
  • Employers should withdraw the demand that workers sign an anti-union guarantee and rehire those who had been sacked.
  • The union should end its policy of sympathetic strikes and instead seek negotiations before resorting to strike action.
• Despite this proposed compromise, the employers, led by William Martin Murphy, rejected the settlement. Murphy and his supporters believed they could decisively defeat the ITGWU.
• Employers' determination to crush the union was fortified by various sources of criticism against them, including the Catholic bishops and British newspapers, which lent their support to the strikers.
• Public opinion increasingly turned against the employers, providing a glimmer of hope that sustained pressure could eventually force a resolution in favour of the workers.

The Kiddies Scheme - More Key Context

• The "Kiddies Scheme" was a significant initiative during the 1913 Dublin Lockout. It aimed to alleviate the suffering of children affected by the prolonged industrial dispute.
• The ITGWU and other supportive organisations organised the scheme to provide temporary refuge for the children of striking workers.
• This initiative became a crucial element in the broader context of the labour struggle, highlighting both the humanitarian crisis and the lengths to which unions would go to support their members.

What it Was

• During the lockout, thousands of workers were left without income, leading to severe hardship and starvation among their families.
• The Kiddies Scheme proposed to send the children of striking workers to stay with sympathetic families in Britain, where they would be well-fed and cared for until the dispute was resolved.
• Similar efforts inspired this idea in other labour struggles, notably in France and Italy, where children were relocated to protect them from the adverse effects of strikes and lockouts.
• The scheme was led by Countess Markievicz and Delia Larkin, James Larkin's sister. They worked tirelessly to organise the transportation and accommodation of the children, collaborating with British labour organisations and sympathetic families willing to host them.
• The primary goal was to ensure the children's well-being and to lessen the burden on struggling families in Dublin.

Importance

The Kiddies Scheme held significant importance for several reasons:

• Humanitarian Relief It provided immediate and crucial relief for children suffering from the lack of food and proper care. By relocating them to supportive environments, the scheme ensured that these children were safe and healthy during a time of extreme hardship.
• Solidarity and Support The scheme demonstrated the solidarity between Irish and British labour movements. British families' willingness to host Irish children highlighted the transnational support for the strikers and their families, fostering a sense of unity among workers across borders.
• Public Awareness The scheme drew significant public attention to the plight of the striking workers and their families. It showcased the severe impact of the lockout on the most vulnerable, garnering sympathy and support for the labour cause.
• Strategic Leverage By highlighting the suffering of children, the scheme applied moral pressure on employers and the government to address the workers' demands. It underscored the dire consequences of the lockout, pushing for a resolution to the conflict.
• The Kiddies Scheme left a lasting legacy in labour history as an example of innovative and compassionate action during industrial disputes. It remains a powerful symbol of the broader social impacts of labour struggles and the lengths to which communities will go to support their members.