© harpercollins publishers 2010 interpretation just how friendly were friendly societies?
TRANSCRIPT
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Just how friendly were Friendly Societies?
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Objectives
In this activity you will:
Learn how workers helped themselves in difficult times.
Discuss how effective these methods were.
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
What were Friendly Societies?
It is estimated that, by the 1900s, about 4.5 million people (nearly all working men) belonged to Friendly Societies registered with the Government.
There may have been another 4.5 million members of unregistered societies.
That means about 9-10 million workers were regularly paying into a Friendly Society of one kind or another.
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
How did Friendly Societies work?
Friendly Societies began in the 18th century.
Workers got together to help each other out in times of need.
A weekly subscription entitled you to a regular payment if you
were too sick to work, or to pay for your funeral.
Some societies also paid what was in effect an old age pension,
once you were too old to work.
Friendly Societies also played a part in people’s social lives,
organising fêtes, processions and garden parties.
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Were Friendly Societies good?
Historian oneAbsolutely! Membership was huge and workers received a regular payment if they were too sick to work. Death payments prevented a pauper’s funeral, and pensions prevented poverty in old age.They were more important than the government’s contribution and more effective that the Poor Law or the Workhouse. All posts were elected so the societies taught people lessons in democracy and financial control. They also provided social events.
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Were Friendly Societies bad?
Historian twoToo much stress has been put on the importance of Friendly Societies. They were poorly organised and badly run. The main problem with the societies is that if you stopped paying your subscription, you lost your payment – often at the very time you needed it most.Very few women joined these societies and the work the government did after 1906 was much more effective in helping the poor.
© HarperCollins Publishers 2010
Interpretation
Now your turn…
Which of the historians do you agree with? Why do you agree
with them?
Are there any points that you can think of that the two historians
haven’t covered?
Be prepared to present your judgement to the rest of the group.