 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 - 31 March 1999 Issue No. 422 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 - 31 March 1999 Issue No. 422
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Profile Features Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Al-Ahram:
A Diwan of contemporary life (278)
A 56-day tramway strike in Cairo and Alexandria was staged in the late summer of 1919 over pay and working conditions. It was the second tramway stoppage since the Belgian-owned operating company launched the transport service in 1896. The fervour the strike generated was intensified by the atmosphere created by the 1919 nationalist revolution against the British occupation of Egypt. Al-Ahram devoted much space to the arguments of the two sides in the strike and also to independent opinions. But the newspaper was clearly on the side of the striking workers Dr Yunan Labib Rizk * tells the story from the Al-Ahram coverage
Illustration by
Makram Henein
The "electric tramway" began operation in Cairo in 1896. Fifteen years later, in 1911, it saw its first major strike. If that strike inconvenienced the population of Cairo, it was hardly a match for the strike that occurred eight years later. Imagine the paralysis brought on by a strike that lasted nearly two months, at a time when tramways had become the predominant means of transportation in the Egyptian capital.
Lasting from 10 August to 5 October 1919, Egypt's second tramway strike caused considerable grumbling, much of it making its way to the pages of the nation's press, and of Al-Ahram in particular. A merchant from Ghamra complains that, because of the strike, he had to pay 24 piastres a day, a considerable expense at the time, in order to commute back and forth from work in Ataba. "And I have had to give up taking my noon meal at home, eating it in a restaurant instead, because at least that is cheaper than the transportation costs to travel home and back in the afternoon. I hope that the government does not neglect the tramway issue, because transportation in this far flung city is a vital issue."
Another Al-Ahram reader, signing himself "an educated man", reproached the tramway company for acting as though the strike was purely an affair between itself and its employees. "The company seems to have overlooked the fact that, in obtaining the concession from the government to operate the tramway it explicitly pledged itself to offer the public a continuous service in exchange for its revenues from the passengers. Nothing but the most compelling circumstances, such as accidents, should absolve it from this responsibility. The situation might be tolerable if it were only a question of a week or two, but it appears that the strike might extend for two months or more." The "educated man" had given quite an accurate prediction.
Al-Ahram's offices were also flooded by dozens of letters from government employees who "are forced to pay exorbitant rates for carriage transport so that they can arrive at work on time."
The situation was indeed grave. By the end of World War I, Cairo's growing tramway network had largely supplanted older forms of transportation, including animal transport and horse or donkey drawn carriages, while the "omnibus", as it was first called, was still only a novelty. The merchant from Ghamra, therefore, was expressing more than just a petty personal grievance at his transportation costs. With the sudden glut in demand, the owners of the traditional modes of transportation had a golden opportunity to charge exorbitant fares. In fact, the London Times correspondent in Cairo at the time reported that carriage drivers were paying the striking tramway workers a portion of their income in the hopes of extending the strike for as long as possible and, thereby, "filling their pockets with gold."
The war also had an impact on the nature of the strike itself. Before the war, many of the tramway operators had been foreign expatriates, mostly from Greece, Italy or Malta. With the outbreak of hostilities, the bulk of these returned to their countries of origin in order to participate in the war effort. As a result, the Egyptians came to constitute the majority of the tramway line employees. But, in their strike, the Egyptian workers did not have the power of their European counterparts, who, on the one hand, enjoyed certain immunities under the capitulations system and, on the other, had the active backing of their consulates in any labour action. That the tramway company was perfectly aware of the weaker position of the Egyptian strikers was evidenced in the statement it issued on 15 September 1919: "It is a well known fact that the company's drivers and conductors constitute the majority of its employees. Most of these are from the poor classes and many are illiterate and have no skills or occupational training." The second tramway strike cannot be divorced from the general events of the 1919 anti-British nationalist revolution. The climate precipitated by the revolution pervaded all sectors of Egyptian society, many of which mobilised to press their demands. Perhaps because of its effect on the daily life of the capital, the movement of the tramway strikers was most acutely felt. In all events, the atmosphere charged with nationalist sensitivities prompted all sides in the tramway dispute -- the company, the workers and the government -- to explain their respective positions to the public.
Although Al-Ahram, as we will see, clearly sided with the workers, five weeks into the strike, it published the statement issued by the Belgian-owned tramway company which sought to defend itself against "the prevalent view that the strikers are justified in their demands, because their salaries are so meagre in comparison with the company's enormous profits." While normally the company would have remained silent on such allegations, the statement continued, the current situation has compelled it to speak out in order to "rectify the contentious opinions that are disseminated in the press by certain tendentious writers who play upon the public's sympathies for the conditions of the workers."
The tramway employees, contrary to popular belief, receive numerous benefits, the statement said. Their working day does not exceed eight-and-a-quarter hours. The starting wage is 11 piastres per day which increases by half a piastre with every year of service. In addition, workers receive a cost of living allowance of two piastres per day, a new summer uniform every year and a new winter uniform every two years, free medical treatment, a guarantee of three months at half salary in the event of chronic illness and financial assistance "in the event of dire circumstances." What employer could offer his staff better terms, the writer asked. As testimony to the excellent working conditions offered by the company, he said, "no sooner does a position fall vacant than hundreds rush forward to apply." The strikers are well aware of this, "and their greatest fear is losing their jobs." The only reason the strike has lasted so long, the writer added, is that "the employees who wish to return to work are being intimidated by their colleagues. In fact, many workers desiring to report back to work have received such severe injuries that they had to be taken to hospital." The statement concluded with a reminder to the public that "in the last strike 30 employees had nitric acid thrown in their faces while a 150 others were wounded, which is why so many drivers and conductors in this strike have decided to remain in the safety of their homes."
The workers, too, appealed to the public through the pages of Al-Ahram. Under the headline "A word to public opinion," their spokesmen apologised "for the difficulties and hardship the public is currently facing in Cairo" and they wished "from the depth of our hearts, that we are availed the opportunity to resolve this crisis."
However, the workers' statement said, the tramway company is fully responsible for this state of affairs because of its intransigence on fulfilling its commitments. "So that the public may be well apprised of our circumstances, the average pay of the employee, inclusive of the so-called war increment, is only 14 piastres a day. As the workers do not work every day of the month and they have families and children to support, you can readily comprehend their difficult circumstances in these times of unprecedented high costs of living."
The statement then outlined the workers' demands. These included a very modest 2 per cent wage increase, the right to a month's severance pay for every year of service, and the payment of four per cent interest on the workers' insurance from the date it is deposited. The workers also had several moral demands "which will not entail any cost to the company." These included recognition of their union and the creation of a bureau, including a representative from the union, to investigate any charges brought against workers.
Al-Ahram's position in the dispute can be seen in the space it allocated many letters and articles that defended the workers. Among these were six articles contributed by "the great financier Talaat Bek Harb" entitled "The Egyptian tramway problem". Appearing between 12 and 28 September, Talaat Harb's series offered ample proof that the financial situation of the company was such as to refute any contention that it stood to lose if it responded favourably to the strikers' demands. The tramway company, he said, tried to impress upon the government that it could not afford, with its present fares, to raise the workers' wages. It, therefore, presented the government with the choice of amending its concession to permit for a 20 per cent fare increase or of relinquishing its five per cent share of the company's profits under the terms of their agreement of 1908. To support its case, the company argued that the Railways Authority raised its fares by 100 per cent. However, Talaat Harb countered, it was unreasonable to liken the Railways Authority with the tramway company. The former was "a government authority that serves the entire nation and not merely a segment of the populace, regardless of its size. It is hardly necessary to describe the harm that would be caused by any disruption to the railway service, while disruption of the tramway service is localised to the people of Cairo and Alexandria. "Moreover, he wrote, trains are operated by coal the prices of which have become far too costly for the government to subsidise without causing severe budgetary deficits. The tramway company, on the other hand, only relies on coal to fuel its electricity generators which can, instead, be converted to be operated by gasoline "which is abundant and readily affordable." Talaat Harb then presented his readers with a very telling calculation. If the tramway company were to implement a 20 per cent fare increase, its income would increase by LE60,000 per year, or an average of LE5,000 per month. By granting the workers' demands for a pay increase, with 3,000 on the payroll, it would be spending an additional LE3,024 per month. In other words, the company would be making an additional profit of LE2,000 per month "taken from the pockets of the poor passengers," if the fare increase was approved.
For its part, Al-Ahram listed a number of violations by the tramway company of its agreement with the government. Firstly, the company independently raised the stipulated fare from four to five millimes. Secondly, it added three carriages to its trains instead of the agreed upon two. Thirdly, it failed to abide by its pledges to provide a first class carriage on every tramway and to furnish the carriages with shades "so as to protect the passengers from the sun in the summer and the cold in the winter." Finally, the newspaper added an interesting statistic of its own: "The cost of tramway transportation per kilometre is twice that of Europe and the US."
As the debate raged in the press, the government formed "a committee to reconcile workers and employers." With the stated aim of "intervening in those disputes that arise between employers and employees with regard to wages and working hours," the first task of the committee was to help resolve the tramway crisis. The committee did its utmost to convince the company to respond to the workers' demands without raising its fares, urging it to explore other ticketing packages to increase its earnings.
Evidently, the committee's efforts were successful, for on 4 October, Al-Ahram announced that the negotiations had ended between the company director and the prime minister "who has stated that the company's profits are sufficient to permit it to respond to the workers' demands."
The company, however, had not caved in so easily, for it managed to secure a commitment from the government to subsidise the temporary loss entailed from the wage increase until the company's profits permitted it to reimburse the government coffers.
At 6.00 that evening, the tramway bosses met with the 24 representatives of the workers in the office of the governor of Cairo. The governor read out the agreement that had been concluded with the company. This included a 60 per cent salary hike for junior employees and a 20 per cent rise for senior employees, the guarantee of severance pay at the rate of half a month's wages for every year of service, the creation of a workers fund in which would be deposited any fines collected from the workers and the granting of an interest-free loan of 100 piastres to the workers to be paid back over four months in 25-piastre instalments. Although the workers agreed to the terms, they pressed for the right to their wages during the period of the strike. The company was adamant in refusing this condition and, this time, it was backed by the governor who argued that the terms offered by the agreement were in the workers favour. The workers asked for a short respite in order to consult their lawyer.
On the morning of 5 October, they announced their decision. Emerging from a meeting in their syndicate, they announced that all employees would be returning to work the following morning. "Hopes in the capital are pinned on all the workers, particularly those residing outside Cairo, resuming their responsibilities," commented Al-Ahram. These hopes were not disappointed, particularly after the company pledged to reinstate all workers who had been in service on the day of the strike to their positions without penalty.
* The author is a professor of history
and head of Al-Ahram History Studies Centre.
