STATISTICS OF TRADE DISPUTES.

In the absence of a more satisfactory term, the words "trade dispute" are used to describe a disagreement between the employer and his employees that causes an interruption or cessation of work. As a matter of fact, many such disagreements as to the terms of employment occur which do not lead to the stoppage of work or to the termination of the actual or implied contract between the employer and the employed. Where, for example, the two sides have signed an agreement to settle disputes by arbitration, both continue working without interruption in case of a disagreement which would not be called an industrial dispute in the technical sense in which the term is used. In other words, the term industrial or trade dispute applies only to such disputes as are popularly known as strikes or lockouts.

The distinction between a strike and a lockout is of very insignificant value and has given rise to a vast amount of confused thinking and writing. Because workingmen, like other sellers of commodities, have sometimes declined the terms offered by the buyers (employers of labor), they have been blamed for causing the derangements of production that follow the stoppage of work. Some people saw in their collective cessation of work the cause of every disturbance to industry that might ensue, thus quite overlooking the facts (1) that it always takes two to make a quarrel and (2) that their demand of the workmen to continue work upon the terms offered by the employer would amount to compulsory labor, or slavery. The odium that was thus early attached to the word strike by such confusion of thought naturally made it unpopular among the workingmen, who in the course of time endeavored to shift the blame to the employer by saying they had been "locked out."

66

It is now commonly recognized among students of industrial relations that neither a strike nor a lockout is in itself the cause of disordered production. They rather seek to find in the demands back of the strike or lockout the real cause of the

difficulty. They do not think that the quitting of work by the men makes a strike, or a discharge by the employers a lockout, for such definitions leave one in the dark as to which side has really taken the initiative in the severance of relations between the employer and the employed. If for example the employer desires a new contract with his men, he does not go through the form of discharging them and then offering to re-engage them at reduced wages; but simply gives notice of the proposed reduction of wages, thus placing upon his employees the odium of engaging in a strike if they decline to renew the contract under the new conditions. The employer is thus the one who terminates existing contracts and stops operations rather than pay the existing rates of wages; it is he who has in this case taken the initiative in the severance of contractual relations with his employees; hence he is responsible for the interruption of work, which should be called a lockout rather than a strike. Logically, no doubt, this view is the more correct one; but it cannot be carried out under present conditions, since it is frequently impossible to say whether an existing contract has actually been abrogated by the proposal of new terms or conditions of work. Take, for instance, the numerous cases in which an employer posts new rules. The men quit work and their opponents call it a strike. But the employees maintain that some of the rules are new, and contrary to existing agreements; that the employer has terminated his contract with them and by refusing to allow them to work under the terms of that contract has locked them out. When, as is usually the case, the contract is unwritten, it is practically impossible to say whether or not it has been terminated by the promulgation of new shop rules on the part of either the employer or the union. In Ilion last year some gunmakers quit work because the employer had had the glass in a lower window painted, thereby obscuring their view of the street. The employer in such a case would claim that the men had struck; they on their side would claim that the employer caused the stoppage of work by changing the terms of their employment without their consent. And the impartial observer, unable to settle the question of initiative, might well despair of attempting to classify the dispute.

The question of responsibility which is back of the desire to maintain the distinction between strike and lockout cannot as a matter of fact be settled, because on such matters people hold diverse opinions; some will hold the employer responsible and some the employees. When, for example, workingmen quit work rather than accept a twenty-five per cent reduction in wages, their collective cessation from work (strike) may be, as regards the general welfare of the community, in the highest degree commendable; since it is now the acknowledged policy of great states to maintain a high standard of living among its citizens. On the other hand, the proposed reduction in wages might be justified on the ground that the existing rates were too high in comparison with other trades or with other districts in the same trade. The only possible way of deciding which view is correct (outside of a public determination through the courts or other machinery of compulsory arbitration and gov ernment regulation of wages), is to allow economic forces to decide. If the existing rates are fair and the proposed rates too low, the employers will be convinced by the failure of a supply of labor to take the place of their discharged force; if the existing rates are too high and the proposed rates fair, the employees will be convinced thereof by the appearance of other workmen for positions at the reduced rate. Hence the strike or the lockout is not in itself a blameworthy act. Unless we are ready for public regulation of wages, we must concede to workmen the right to withhold their labor and to employers the right to withhold their capital from the market.

In the event of the failure of these two factors of production to agree upon the terms of the labor contract, the resultant stoppage of work may be either a strike or lockout, and it is really immaterial which it is called. No necessity exists for dividing industrial disputes into these two groups, and that method has not been followed in the preparation of this Report. But while all trade disputes are thus tabulated under the one heading, one column of Table II describes the beginnings of the dispute and tells whether the employees voluntarily quit work or the employers closed down the shops. It is the outward manifestation, the overt act that in common practice decides whether a dispute shall be called a strike or lockout; and in this respect the popular usage is followed in this Report.

Strikes and Lockouts in New York State, 1881-1900.

The sixteenth annual report of the United States Commis sioner of Labor presents statistics of strikes and lockouts in the United States for the twenty year period 1881-1900, from which the following figures for New York State have been compiled. A total of 6,676 labor disputes in the twenty years is reported for the State, an average of 334 per year, these figures being larger than for any other State. Of the total, 216, or one in thirty, are classed as lockouts. A summary of the more important facts concerning these disputes may be made up thus:

Of all disputes 77.1 per cent were ordered by organizations. The proportion of strikes inaugurated by labor unions was 78.7 per cent while 27.8 per cent of the lockouts were ordered by employers' associations. In the twenty years 41,240 establish