Military strike of 1918
 | This article is incomplete because it is pending further input from participants, or it is a work-in-progress by one author. Please comment on this article's talk page to share your input, comments and questions. Note: To contribute to this article, you may need to seek help from the author(s) of this page. |
The military strike of 1918 was a public protest or strike by members and representatives of the Themiclesian armed forces that occurred on Jan. 2, 1918. The protesters voiced their objection's the government's unequal treatment of various units and the continued dedictions from soldiers' wages. The strike was a wildcat strike as there was no labour union or similar organization representing soldiers.
Background
The common evaluation of a soldier's work changed radically during the 19th century. At its turn, all Themiclesian men were liable to a certain period of military service every year, fixed by the local government. This was nominally unpaid work, but if service extended beyond a certain time, the government issued compensations. For the few professional soldiers in Themiclesia, the Government conceived of their pay as this sort of compensation, extended to the entire year. Thus, military pay was conceptually distinct from wages in that the former was determined by losses from forgone employment, while the latter was fixed by negotiating parties.
By 1900, the government had accepted a standing military as the primary defence against invasion rather than militias, which were marshalled progressively infrequently through the 19th century. Professional military pay thus lost its comparison with militia compensations, though it was still fixed by Parliament alone, with input from government ministers. During the same century, units received different amounts of pay based on several factors. Those stationed in the capital city tended to be paid slightly more, as money expenses were more frequent there. However, Parliament often altered a unit's pay on the basis of the prestige, activity, and clout of the unit's officers. One led by a string of social nobodies might see pay stagnate for decades, while another commanded by a famous aristocrat, particularly one socially active, could receive frequent rises. In 1847, the worst-paid regiment received 650 coins a month, while the best-paid one enjoyed 1,250 coins. Differences in pay had little to do with the unit's working condition or, at any rate, things within the serviceperson's control.
In 1850, the Liberal government first introduced a policy to standardize the regiments' equipment and pay, though the matter died in the House of Lords, which was concerned that it might lose the power to debate military procurement and pay. This was a consistent Liberal platform, which fixed an upper and lower bound of soliders' wages in 1887 on the argument that soldiers perform their duties under a persuasive commander as much as a mute commander, and it would be unfair to change their wages on the basis of the identity or performance of officers. This is thought to be the first time Parliament recognized soldiers' entitlement to wages on the basis of work.
In 1905, Parliament fixed a national minimum wage for all labourers and appointed a Labour Board to oversee its operation. Furthermore, the law prohibited employers from deducting wages on the pretext of equipment, room and board, food, or company losses that could not be attributed to the worker's omission or malice, and the Board was instructed to investigate claims of the same. It confused the authorities somewhat whether soldiers were labourers under the sense of the minimum wage laws, though leading commentators seemed to think a logical distinction cannot be drawn between the soldier and the wage labourer.
In late 1917, a soldier in the Capital Defence Force filed a complaint with the Labour Board that his salaries were deducted for "uniform subsidy" and "laundry", rendering it beneath the national minimum. The case went through a hearing on Nov. 4, 1917, with Hap Goi RC representing the CDF's view that there was no precedent for soldiers being considered labourers. But the Board ruled that insofar as soldiers provided labour to the state for wages on a temporal basis (i.e. wages provided per unit of labour time), he was to be considered a labourer and the government his employer. It then ordered the CDF to restore to the soldier the controverted deductions; for several other claimants, the CDF refund the deduction that was not controversial, since otherwise servicepersons paid for uniforms and their laundry.