|
BUTLER
– THE MAN AND HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO
THE WORKERS’ STRUGGLE By David Abdulah June 2001, will mark the sixty-fourth anniversary of he 1937
mass uprising. It is always important for us, on anniversaries such as these, to
“go back to the roots” and recall the events and the personalities of that
are in our history. Most importantly, however, is the need to place the events
and personalities in the context of the social and political development that
were taking place, and to make the connections between what happened then and
what is happening now – 64 years after.
Tubal Uriah “Buzz” Butler
was the central figure in the workers’ movement in the second half of the
1930’s. He was born in Grenada in 1891 and migrated to Trinidad in 1921 in
search of a better job in the oilfields. He worked up to 1929
in the oilfields until an accident damaged one of his legs and left him with a
permanent characteristic limp. Butler was also a preacher. He
has a Baptist Church and many oilworkers were also members of his church. The
religious aspect of Butler and his movement were manifested by the ritual hymns
and prayers before and after each meeting, and by constant reference to God in
his speeches and letters. Appropriate biblical quotations were used to justify
the militant demands that Butler and the workers made on the authorities. However, these facts about
Butler are far less important than the role he played in shaping and developing
the working class movement in the period. In the 1930’s the social conditions
of the people were appalling. The Forster Commission, set up
by the British Government to investigate the circumstances of the 1937 uprising
stated inter alia”…… the general health condition of the Colony is
affected by a combination of circumstances – e,g, disease, malnutrition,
over-crowding and bad housing…..” Working conditions were little
better. In the oilfields, the average wage was 7 cents per hour, a rate that
could not feed, clothe and house a man and his family. In addition, there
existed open victimisation and exploitation of the workers. There were no Trade
Unions to defend workers’ job, unemployment was high and racism was rampant as
the oil companies were owned and managed almost completely by whites – many of
them from South Africa. In the words of the Forster
Commission “it can safely be said that prior to the out break employers
generally had been slow to realise the importance of the development of
machinery for conciliation or collective bargaining …… and indeed their
attitude had been the reverse of encouraging. In respect of Trinidad Leaseholds
Limited……….. It is admitted that this Company does employ a fair
proportion of South Africans…..” There are other reports (e.g. interviews with oilworkers)
that workers had been told by one manager “Black dogs don’t bite, they only
bark”. These social and economic
conditions obviously gave rise to tremendous discontent. A discontent that was
totally justified since the owners of oil Companies and the big sugar and other
estates were doing very well. According to Arthur Lewis, who in 1939 wrote an
account of the uprising. “Profits of four of them (oil companies) in the year
1936-37 amounted to 1,540,000 pounds on a total capitalization of 6,770,000
pounds. As the profits of these four companies were more than three times the
total sum paid in wages by the whole industry (473,000) pounds it is not
surprising that one company was able to declare a dividend of 30% an another a
dividend of 45%. So powerful were the interests of these large foreign oil
companies that Lewis states “it
is often said that the real rulers of Trinidad are not the Governor or his
Legislative Council, but the representatives of the oil industry.” In 1935, the workers of Apex
Trinidad Ltd., of the oil companies operating out of Fyzabad, could take the
oppression no longer and went on strike. This strike however was short lived and
after only 3 days production was
resumed. The Company however, reacted harshly
and two hundred and twelve workers last their jobs. As a result, the
dismissed workers began a hunger march from Fyzabad to Port of Spain. This was the first struggle of
the workers of which Butler was the recognized leader. The hunger march to Port of Spain also marked the
beginning of two distinct approaches to workers struggles. On the one hand
Butler agitated, encouraged militant actions and developed confrontation with
the authorities in order to get justice. One the other hand the existing labour
organization the Trinidad labour Party (previously known as the Trinidad
Workingmen’s Association) led by Captain Cipriani, espoused the line of
compromise and dialogue with the
authorities and with employers. The Cipriani line was
demonstrated in 1935 when the Captain – sent by the Colonial Governor,
intercepted Butler and the marches at Chaguanas and requested them to stop the
march. Cipriani said if they did so, he would negotiate to get their jobs back.
The workers turned back to Fyzabad and never got their jobs back. This difference in approach
lad to Butler leaving the TLP and forming, in august 1936, the British Empire
Workers and Citizens Home Rule
party. (BEW & CHRP). Around the same time,
Adrian Cola Rienzi – a young lawyer – also left the TLP and formed
the Trinidad Citizens League. The reason for the split in the TLP was because it
had lost touch, and could no longer articulate the needs and wishes of the
workers. Though Cipriani and the TLP did make a contribution to workers’
struggles in the period 1920-1932, it was not capable of leading a working class
that was becoming more conscious and ore militant. This Butler was able to do. Following the founding of the
BEW & CHRP, Butler began
agitating amongst workers particularly in oil – but also in sugar, for better
wages and working conditions. Hundreds of meetings were held by Butler during
this period, and these always provoked tremendous excitement and debate amongst
the workers. For the first time in years, workers were developing confidence in
themselves, and were recognizing that collective action was necessary if they
were to make inroads into the oppressive social and economic conditions that
they experienced daily. And to the workers, Butler was their undisputed leader.
He also made representation to the oilfields employers on behalf of the workers
but this provoked no response. As a result of the Companies
Intransigence, the workers prepared themselves to possible strike action. Some
employers were actually expecting this to take place o June 7th 1937.
it is instructive to note that despite their analysis that strike action was
impending, they did nothing to meet the workers’ demands! On June 19th, 1937,
in the early hours of the morning, the strike began at Apex Oilfields. Within
hours, news of the strike was relayed to other oilfields, and to a man everybody
downed tools. On the evening of June 19th,
Butler was addressing a meeting of several hundred workers of Fyzabad, when the
police attempted to arrest him. Butler asked the crowd “MUST I GO
COMRADES”- to which the workers replied ‘NO – THEY CAN’T TAKE
YOU” The workers then protected Butler from the police and prevented his
arrest. One policeman – Charlie King attempted to do the impossible by
persisting in attempting to arrest Butler. In the process he was killed by the
workers. The strike soon became
nationwide – embracing workers in sugar in particular, and on other
agricultural estates; and workers in P.O.S. – shop clerks etc. The Colonial
Governor summoned British Naval troops from the Bahamas to put down the
uprising. This was done violently. Fourteen people were killed, fifty-nine
wounded and several hundreds of people were arrested. Butler went into :
“Hiding” and was not seen publicly until September of that year. During the
period he used as Cipriani on the other hand,
took no part in the 1937 uprising,. When it broke out, he was in London
attending the coronation of the King, and on his return advised workers “take
only legitimate and constitutional action”. This obviously found favour with
the Colonial authorities who recognized Cipriani as being a “responsible
leader”. Not so Butler. In the words of
the Forster Commission Butler was a “fanatical Negro who was showing
considerable activity in villages near the oilfields and delivering speeches of
an inflammatory nature…. His speeches and the literature issued by his
subsequent events confirmed – many who were prepared to adopt violent methods,
Butler’s activities came to be regarded as dangerous.” A number of important
developments arose out of June 1937. The most important was the formation of
several large trade Unions. The OWTU held its founding congress on July 25th
1937, to be followed within a few months by the All Trinidad Sugar Estates and
Factory Workers Trade Union, the Seamen and Waterfront Workers Trade Union, and
the Federated Workers Union which eventually joined with the national Union of
Government Employers to form the present day NUGFW). This development arose out of
the recognition by workers of the need for organization. According to the
minutes of the first meeting of the OWTU, one worker states”…. the only
right and natural thing for any conscious worker to do is organise in order to
defend their labour but as long as
the workers fail to organise, so long will they suffer and be disunited, they
will always be, industrial serfs.” Obviously the workers wanted a powerful;
organization to defend and advance their interests. The Colonial authorities also
wanted Trade Unions – but for completely different reasons. The Forster
Commission stated inter alia “Has there existed in the oilfields and elsewhere
organised means of collective bargaining – there can be little doubt that the
disturbances which subsequently arose could have been avoided. As it was, the
road was open to any irresponsible leadership that might appear on the
scene….. Such a movement (i.e. Trade Unions), given sympathetic guidance by
Government and a tolerant encouragement on the part of employers during the
transitional stage of its development, is the surest way of securing industrial
stability and the removal of extremist tendencies.” The Commission then recommended ways and
means to keep the Trade Union within the limits of peaceful negotiation for
“reasonable” demands. From as early as 1937, then,
there have been conflicting views as to the role of the Trade Union. This
conflict has persisted to this day. Another significant
development of June 1937 was the close relationship between workers in oil and
sugar. In that period, this meant workers
of African descent (oil) and Indian descent
(sugar). To underline the absence of racial conflict amongst the workers, Adrian
Cola Rienzi (an Indian ) was unanimously elected as the first President General
of the OWTU, a position he held for some six years. Rienzi was also the first
President General of the ATSEFWTU, and several executive members of OWTU
simultaneously held executive posts of the
Sugar Workers Union. This unity was also manifested by the unity of
action during June 1937. Indian
sugar workers preferred Butler as much as African oilworkers. Contrary to
established opinion, racial antagonism is therefore not a “natural”
phenomenon amongst the people. Rather, it was introduced by certain political
personalities to establish a base for party support when the Westminister two
party parliamentary system became established. Butler “re-appeared” In
September 1937, in order to give evidence before the Forster Commission. He did
appear before the Commission on October on October 6th, and despite
the fact that he co-operated in this regard, was jailed in December 1937 for
sedition. He remained incarcerated until May 1939. On his release from jail.
Butler was made Chief Organiser of the OWTU – the Union of which, despite not
having participated actively in its affairs, he was the founding father and
mentor. He immediately resumed his militant agitation, a line that did not find
favour with the Union Executive. On 26th July, 1939d the workers at
Trinidad Lake Asphalt, went on strike. Butler supported this move, while the
Executive did not. He was called in before a disciplinary committee, but
characteristically Butler refused to go. On to trade Unionism manifested itself
concretely. Butler was again jailed during
the war for allegedly “subversive acts” he was released from detention on
April 9th 1945, which was an occasion for celebration amongst many
workers. Amongst the welcoming party were a new breed of local politicians Dr.
Patrick Solomon, Dr. David Pitt (now Lord Pitt) and Roy Joseph. Immediately Butler did what he
was accustomed to doing – traveling throughout the oilbelt, holding meetings
and agitating around the problems that faced oilworkers, despite the fact that
nine years had elapsed since the June 19th uprising, and economic
conditions remained poor. Wages were still very low, housing and health had
improved relatively little and unemployment had not improved. The hardships on
poor people were greater due to the recently ended war which created food and
commodity shortages, and generally depressed the level of economic activity in
the country. Butler revived his Trade Union, founded after his expulsion from the OWTU in 1939,
which was named the British Empire Workers, Peasants and ratepayers Union. Many
workers, being loyal to Butler, had left the OWTU when he was expelled, and
these workers – particularly in the Point Fortin areas, formed the nucleus of
the new Union.. The BEWPRU attempted to get
recognition from employers and succeeded in at least two Companies – the Lake
Asphalt Company and a local independent oil company owned by Timothy Roodal. The bulk of the oil companies through the Oilfields
Employers Association, refused to deal with Butler. In the words of the Colonial
Governor, the “Oilfields Employers Association, Sugar manufacturing
Federation, and Shipping Association as well as the OWTU, ATSE&FWTU and the
FWTU, do not approve the methods pursued by the “Butler Union”…. These
organizations are not willing to have any dealings with the BEWFRU led by Mr.
Butler” Despite this, 1946-47 was a
period of intense working class struggle. Dockworkers went on strike on 8th
November 1946, to be followed by oilworkers on December 19th in 1947,
pubic workers and sugar workers
went on strike. In all of these, Butler identified with the workers and their
grievances. In the case of the oilworkers strike and to a lesser extent the
sugar workers strike, he provided the active leadership. In 1946 oilworkers strike was centred mainly around the United British
Oilfields (UBOT) refinery in point Fortin, and in the producing fields in and
around Fyzabad, .The strike dragged on into January with no result. Scabs were
brought in by UBOT under police protection and encourages by the OWTZU who
President General issued a public call for workers to return to work. Several
other workers, under economic pressure returned to work. On 17th
January, several oil wells were set on fire, and striking workers poured crude
oil in the road in various areas to disrupt transportation. This escalation caused the
Governor to ban Butler from the
oilfields area. This in turn provoked a march from Fyzabad to Port of Spain of
over a thousand workers let by Butler to his headquarters -#7A St. Joseph Road,
port of Spain. On January 21st,
when the Governor recognized that the strike could develop into national
proportions (the Public Works strike began on January 8th and there
were active links between Butler and Public Workers), a state of Emergency was declared.
Butler’s headquarters was raided, workers who were there were beaten and
arrested and a printing machine damaged. In addition, workers who had occupied
the Red House and who were gathered in Woodford Square, were tear gassed and
attacked by baton wielding policemen. Many were arrested. This was Butler’s last pitch
as a Trade Unionist. The actions of the recognized trade unions, the employers and the
Colonial state machine were too much for him to conquer. The strike was lost,
many workers who took part were never again to get employment in the oil
industry, and his Union, without recognition became powerless. It is significant to note what
F.W. Dalley, a British Trade Unionist wrote in his report on the industrial
unrest in Trinidad in 1946-47, commissioned by the Colonial Secretary.
“Responsible Trade Unionism and Butlerism” cannot exist side by side; they
are incompatibles and the workers should be helped to realise this by all the
responsible elements in the colony. It is natural for the credulous, uneducated,
simple-minded, religiously inclined and long exploited West Indian to give ear
to his specious appeals and messianic promises; but intelligent, educated men
who know Mr. Butler’s family history, his own mental abnormality, the violence
which his followers practice are surely not deceived.” Dalley then went on to
urge further education along the lines of “ responsible trade unionism.” Despite these setbacks in the
Trade Union fields however, Butler remained a powerful figure for another
decade. He entered Parliamentary politics in 1946 – the first under universal
adult suffrage- but lost due to a tactical error in deciding to fight Albert
Gomes in a Port of Spain constituency. Three members of Butler’s party –
mostly professional, won their seats however.
It was during this election that race was heavily used to mobilize votes. Butler remained active in the
period leading up to the 1950 elections. In 1950 he and his party again entered
the parliamentary fray. This time he fought in a stronghold and won. Five other
members of his party also won and the six Butlerites were joined by two
Independents giving them a total of eight out of the eighteen elected seats –
the largest single group in the Legislature. Butler was denied the opportunity
of being elected to the Executive Council as the remaining elected members and
the nominated members of the legislature effectively blocked him. Once again the two views of
working class struggle were exposed. In the words of Albert Gomes “I am glad that some of us insisted in the fact of opposition that
without the nominated system, this country would have been consigned to person
lacking in experience balance and perspective … it (the elections) had been for a long time
a straight fight between those who
believe that human affairs are assisted by the application of violent method and
those who believed in peaceful and gradual change.” Denied parliamentary political
power, as well as trade Union recognition, Butler and his movement began to
decline. This was hastened by those middle-class professionals (Sinanan Roodal
etc) who were merely riding Butler’s popularity with the working class for
their own political ends. In the years between 1950 and
1956, Butler was out of the country (in England) for much of the time. When he
returned to Trinidad in 1956, he fought elections for the last time. On this
occasion he won only two seats, the PNM having ridden on the crest of the new
nationalist movement of the period. Also crystallizing was the open appeal to
race in this election with the Indian PDP led by Bhadase Maharaj. Butler’s activities spanned
two decades. He, more than anyone else developed the workers movement in
Trinidad and Tobago, which in turn gave rise to trade Unionism. The political
agitation that Butler carried out for Home Rule marked the beginning of the end
of colonialism. His attempts to forge the unity of African and Indian workers
along common issues of exploitation and oppression is significant and remains to
this day an important objective of social change to be achieved. One weakness was his inability
to organise a continuous scientific struggle for political objectives. It was to
frequently organise around specific issues and actions, which could not be
sustained over time. Another weakness was the inability to recognize the dangers
of the intellectual, middle class opportunities – a weakness which eventually
led to the complete political domination of workers by this class and ironically
of the race politics which Butler fought against. He also developed a faith in
the colonial powers and parliamentary politics that was given his experience,
unrealistic. Despite the fact that he faded
away unceremoniously, and despite the fact that he, particularly after 1956,
took compromising and at times backward positions (e.g. anti-communism),
Butler’s contribution to the social and economic welfare of the working class
cannot be doubted. In 1980, at a time when there are so many
of the 1937 problems remaining (unemployment, inflation, housing, health), and
at a time when the people have lost faith in Government and the parliamentary
process, the politics of confrontation a exemplified by Butler is once again on
the agenda. And those in authority who attack the left as being “violent”
and “unreasonable” and “irresponsible” do not sound too different from
the Forsters, the Dalleys and the Albert Gomeses. If the working class can avoid
the pitfalls of Butler, then the
Chief Servant’s goal of “Labour
holding the reins” may yet be achieved. That would be a fitting tribute to his contribution to
working class struggle. May the spirit of Tubal Uriah “Buzz” Butler and the June 1937 Live on! |