Page images

last thirty years have been the scientific economists. They have perceived that it is a natural and inevitable outcome of modern industrial conditions. Workers in great industries are no more to be blamed for uniting into unions than are migratory birds for going south in autumn. In each case there is only an application of foresight to the purpose for which God gave itnamely, to guard against approaching danger.1

Yet Judgment Must be Considerate Toward Unionism's Opponents. People's beliefs and prejudices are always a product of their training. He must be a man of masterly wisdom and self-control whom we could hold responsible for the character of all his honest opinions. Some evil institutions were once good, the best perhaps of which society was then capable. No doubt in primitive times many a person welcomed slavery as a refuge from massacre or starvation. During the Dark Ages the common people found safety by huddling around the castle of their feudal lord. His military protection was a return for their service to him. Where the ruling classes a century ago were thoughtful, as they usually were, of the poor around them, the latter probably fared better than they could have fared under any other arrangement so long as they remained in ignorance. Doubtless the same is true to-day in different countries of the servant class, and of many peasants or farm workers protected by custom or neighborhood kindliness-men not prepared to do so well if thrown on their own


To be Obedient, and to Know Their Place, were therefore deemed by the ruling classes the proper attitude of the common people. The latter were dependent, and were looked out for, somewhat as children. The error with many who opposed unionism was that they held on to this view long after considerateness for laborers had ceased. The early factory owner hired them as cheaply as he could, leaving their fate to the poor authorities. By reason of the long subjection of the poor, and of their ignorance and degradation, it took several generations for the upper classes to realize that a laborer was a man

'The necessity for trade unionism is further discussed in the chapter on arbitration and in the chapter on combination and liberty, together with the question of how far unionism is desirable.

and a brother, and that his education, and recognition as a voting citizen, were necessary for the highest welfare of society.1 The same element of caste is still in human nature, among rich and poor alike, and shows itself continually in many ways. In later times, besides a remnant of the old feeling that the employer alone should rule, many have opposed unionism because of a conscientious belief in the largest freedom of conSome phases of this freedom will be discussed in the next chapter, and other phases in the chapters on the shorter work day, on labor laws, and on arbitration. At present many good people oppose unionism because of abuses in its practices, and because they believe many of its principles to be unsound. To an examination of principles and practices we will now proceed.

'Not Conscious Oppression, can we believe, at least with many who consented to it, was the "unreasonable determination of the governing classes [1830-40] to keep the workingmen in a state not merely of subjection, but of abject submission....... Class prejudice was so strong that any attempt at parley made by the workers, however respectfully, was regarded as presumptuous and unbecoming..... .The continued exclusion

Large sections of

of the workmen from the franchise made constitutional action on their side impossible....... Regarding absolute control over the conduct of work people as a sine qua non of industrial organization, even the genuine philanthropists insisted on despotic authority in the factory. Against the abuse of this authority there was practically no guarantee... the wage earners were not only moderate in their demands, but submissive in their behavior. As a rule, wherever we find exceptional aggression and violence on the part of the operatives we discover exceptional tyranny on the side of the employers." (Webb's History, 149.)

Lord Londonderry's Manifesto in 1844, against his striking miners, did not sound so arrogant then as it would sound to-day. He warned the shopkeepers "of his town of Seaham," on pain of his boycott of them, not to "assist the infatuated pitmen [by selling them groceries on credit] in prolonging their own miseries by continuing an insane strike, and an unjust and senseless warfare against their proprietors and masters." "The same intolerance marked the journals of the dominant classes. It seems to have been habitually taken for granted that the workman had not merely to fulfill his contract of service, but to yield implicit obedience in the details of his working life to the will of his master. Combinations by the 'lower orders' were regarded as futile attempts to escape from their natural position of social subservience. In short, the majority of employers, even of this time of negro emancipation, seem to have been unconsciously acting upon the dictum.......that 'the true solution of the contest of all time between labor and capital is that capital should own the laborer, whether

white or black.'" (Webb, 150. The first and second quotations are the words of the manifesto, changed only by the italicizing; the remainder of the paragraph is quoted from Mr. Webb.)

To Look Back and Criticise is Easy, but it is doubtful if, in conscientiousness, or in effort to do one's duty toward other classes and the public, the proportion of performance, to means of knowing the right, rises higher now than it was at periods in the past. We must receive the good, however it comes, and be thankful to get it in any way. With long and weary struggle humanity has had to work out its own salvation. The liberties granted in Magna Charta were wrested from King John in 1215 by warring barons. Their turbulence having become ruinous to rising industry and trade, their power was taken from them in 1485 through a bargain in which the trading class gave up some of their liberties to King Henry VII. in exchange for his protection. Charles I. and James II., in 1649 and 1688, were overcome by Cromwell the country gentleman and a solid middle class of farmers and traders. The wave of liberty that struck America in 1776 was started by Rousseau and other theorists, who worked over and added to ideas that came to them from the world's previous thinking. In all these cases the work for liberty was done by the only ones who had the power and intelligence to do it. It is not discreditable to Jefferson, Adams, and the others, that despite all the declamation over liberty they were mostly aristocrats or slaveholders, and knew nothing of the equality that rose in Jackson's time and later from the mixing of people in the West. Some of them foresaw the equality that was coming, and most of them performed nobly their part in bringing it about. Liberty reached the common people about as soon as they were able to use it with benefit instead of injury.

The Common People Deserve Credit for Demanding Liberties that have come abolition of imprisonment or sale for debt, of binding out to service, of slavery, of foul prisons, of the punishment of many crimes by hanging (all this and more were common up into the nineteenth century); for demanding the right to vote and to combine in unions, and for demanding successively the long list of laws enacted for education, for regulation of factory and mine work, etc. If the workers had not struggled for these reforms they would not have been granted-could not have been used if they had been-and society would have remained in mediæval stagnation. But after all, is there any great merit in demanding changes that result in one's own direct benefit? Was not at least as much credit (especially in England, where men could not free and raise themselves by going on vacant land) due to that majority of the middle and upper classes, who, despite aristocracy, and desire to continue ruling employees autocratically, were honest enough to perceive the justice and necessity of granting, and with apparent loss to themselves, those liberties the people were prepared to use, and later of granting every aid that will result in benefit to them and to society.

As Combination Easily Passes Into Conspiracy, destructive to liberty, the opposition to all restraint of trade, whether reasonable or not, and the delay in perceiving that unionism is beneficial and necessary, were probably not greater than was excusable. In the recommendation by the House of

Lords committee in 1890 of "well considered combination amongst the workers," there was probably no greater sincerity than there was in the relentless opposition a half century earlier portrayed by Mr. Webb. In England most of the demands from workers for new liberties and laws were centered in trade unions, though it was middle class intelligence and Christianity that granted them; but in the American demand for reforms, during 1825-50, and during 1872-98, trade unionists were but a small element among farmers and others to whom unionism was unknown. Before 1860 the progress of liberty and of reform was not confined to the country's few and small cities, where alone unionism existed, nor has the stream of real and pure reform risen since unionism gained its great power after 1885. Unionism is good where needed, though it may easily be overdone, but fortunately the individual enterprise, the love of justice and liberty, that made America great, are still the controlling force, and are this apart from unionism's influence.



The Feeling Against Scabs. To establish collective bargaining that is, to force the employer to bargain with the union, or with his force as a whole, instead of taking advantage of men's necessities by hiring them one at a time-the first thing to be done by wage workers, after forming a union, was to spread a feeling against the act of taking the place of one who had stopped work in order to enforce a demand. How well this principle was settled is shown by the present hatred of unionized working people for a scab, or a rat, or a blackleg, or a black sheep-names applied to one who takes a striker's place, or remains at work while others go out on a strike. Without this feeling against such people, however disagreeable and unjust it may be when carried to extremes, there could be no effective union unless every worker in reach were made a loyal member (seldom possible); and men not protected by law would in many cases have to accept the hours, wages, and conditions a short-sighted and grasping employer might choose to fix. Seldom would competition among employers to hire men be sufficient to give the latter half the advantages they now secure by union in bargaining. Unless this competition is so strong as to lead employers to hire men away from one another, it is of little benefit to unorganized and immobile people like the sweat-shop worker, who, bargaining alone, in the usual over-supply of his kind of labor, must take the low wages offered or be crowded out by another. It is the weakness or willingness of this other person that puts the workers completely in the employer's power. Some employer will be bad enough to use this power, and better employers must do so too or be at a disadvantage in competition.

« PreviousContinue »