What effect did anti-labor union laws such as the Combination Acts have on the working class?
Answers
The Combination Acts were set in such a way that they would act against the trade unions.
This was due to the fact that the govenrment was fearing a certain sense of revolution that was either brimming due to the fact that there were certain unrest going on for quite some time then.
These anti labour union laws were introduced in order to speed up the prosecution.
The consequence on the workforce of anti-labor laws like Combination Acts was that employees would continue to work under hard and low wages. Collective bargaining and trade unions did not authorize the Combination Act of 1799 and 1880.
EXPLANATION:
Increased demand for higher wages and better working conditions was made by organized workers in some trade in the latter part of the eighteenth century. At the beginning of the French revolutionary wars this activity is further expanded, particularly with food prices steeply increasing. Employers were constantly seeking government assistance to restrict employees ' demands. The Combination Acts were designed to act against the syndicates.
Both actions were part of the government's backlash against revolutionary workers and the French Revolution and demonstrated tensions in many sectors between owners and workers. All concerted efforts to improve "working conditions or salaries" were prohibited. The masters even forbade organized activities, but the rules have never been enforced. All previous agreements between workers and employers, written or non-written, were terminated by the Act.
It banned workers from combining wages and working conditions with pain for two months of hard work. In fact, this was a relatively mild penalty according to the time standards. Employees were forbidden from pressuring other employees to stop working with someone else or object to doing so. The act also allowed the accused to testify against each other.
Charges would be brought before one or more judges, which would allow employers to move quickly against workers without a long trial. The staff were convicted and sentenced to hard work for two months. Just four hearings, which were held four times a year, were able to make an appeal. The act affirmed magistrates ' capacity against combinations of employers, but did not improve or provide new methods of compliance.