Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

interference with the non-union men. The moment the union stoops to violence, that moment it loses all claim to the support of an enlightened public opinion.

Another policy which is generally, and in many cases unjustly, condemned is the regulation of output, systematically practiced and indorsed by most unions. The output of the worker is limited in many ways. The reduction of the hours of labor, the limitation of wages which some unions working by the piece system enforce, the prohibition or penalization of overtime, all operate to check the activity or reduce the output of the particular workman. Here, again, it is unsafe to render any general verdict upon the legitimacy of the policy in question. In some industries in which the piece system is employed, the rate per piece has unquestionably been forced down and the workers spurred to excessive exertion by the pressure and influence of pace makers or task masters, paid by the employers to urge the workers to the utmost speed. Where such conditions prevail, no one can successfully question the justice of the feeling which leads the union to object to the presence of pace makers and to prescribe a maximum wage

usually above that secured by the average workman — which union members are not permitted to exceed. In general, it is plain that an individual laborer may underbid a competitor by working more intensely, as well as by offering to work longer hours or at lower pay. On this account alone, trades unions are justified in defining and maintaining some regular pace or standard intensity of work. Without such definition, collective bargaining would be impossible. This last observation, it will be noted, applies only to trades working by the. day. But even where the piece system is used, the workers may be justified in fixing a liberal limit to the amount of piecework which the wage earner shall be permitted to do in a day. For there can be no question that unregulated piecework does stimulate the worker to excessive exertion, and that as daily earnings under the piece system tend to rise, the employer is tempted to reduce the rates.

Some methods of restriction, however, are wholly vicious. The Journeyman Stone Cutters' Union, for instance, stoutly resisted for years the application of machinery to their work, and actually

attempted to prevent the shipment of machine-planed stone into any city where the union had succeeded in preventing the introduction of planers. Such an attitude toward the introduction of labor-saving devices deserves the severest condemnation. Moreover, in some unions there is a tacit approval of the "go-easy" system, the system of " soldiering," or "adulterating labor," as it has been aptly termed. Such a method of restricting output not only corrupts the character of the individual workman who prac tices it, but makes it impossible for the employer to deal with the union as a seller of honest goods, and in this way tends to undermine the whole foundation of trades unionism, which is, as has been said, collective bargaining. On the other hand, there is no particular reason to believe that union labor is especially open to the charge of encouraging "go-easy" habits of work. The habit of stealthy loafing is found at its worst in certain occupations in which labor organizations are unknown, so that when it appears among union workmen it cannot logically be attributed to organization alone.

Educational and Fraternal Activities. Practically all unions have important educational and social activities. Debate upon economic topics is common in union meetings, particularly at the conventions of the state and national organizations. It has even been said that foreign-born wage earners receive their most helpful and vital education in American public questions through the agency of the union. This broad education, which is a most important factor in elevating the standard of life, is supplemented by the social activities of the labor organization. Many unions maintain a so-called "Ladies' Auxiliary," in which the wives of the members participate; give concerts, dances, and other social entertainments, maintain charitable activities, and by general social intercourse operate to unify and solidify the standard of life of the wage-earning group concerned.

Closely allied with these educational and social features is the system of insurance benefits, which has played such a prominent part in the development of labor organizations. In Great Britain fully three times as much money is expended by the unions upon mutual insurance of various kinds as upon administrative activi

ties, or for the support and encouragement of strikes. In the year 1901, for instance, eighty-nine of the one hundred most prominent British unions paid funeral benefits, eighty-three strike benefits, seventy-seven unemployed benefits, seventy-seven sick or accident benefits, and thirty-eight superannuation benefits. Union insurance is exceedingly helpful, not only in stimulating thrift among the individual members, but in making the union more careful and conservative in its policies. Moreover, it serves to keep in the union a large number of members, who, if they had no financial stake in continued membership, would drop out of the union in times of peace, when no apparent advantage was to be derived from the union. All things considered, the Cigars Makers' International Union has many claims to be considered the most successful American labor organization; and its success is in large degree, if not in the largest degree, attributable to its wise and extensive use of mutual insurance. But on the whole, the American unions make relatively little use of the insurance benefit. Most of them pay strike benefits, that is part of their fighting policy, — and perhaps a majority of them pay funeral benefits, while a respectable majority pay sick benefits. But the employment of the superannuation, accident, traveling, or "out-of-work" benefit is comparatively rare. The great majority of American unions are militant in character, existing primarily for the purpose of collective bargaining, and placing the greatest reliance upon the policy of the closed shop and the strike.

The Strike. Probably the most important weapon of the trades union is the strike. Unfortunately, also, the weapon is far too frequently used. Several generations ago most trades unions, while they vehemently defended their right to strike, cordially indorsed arbitration and apparently looked upon the strike as a weapon of last resort. To-day, the average trades union is at best only a lukewarm advocate of arbitration, while it has come to regard striking as a permanent policy. The net result has been to commercialize the strike, as it were. Instead of being a more or less spontaneous outburst against conditions which the workingman regarded as unrighteous and oppressive, the strike has come to be a commonplace method of bettering conditions of employment;

a device to be employed when conditions are favorable, to be laid aside when conditions are unfavorable, but to be used without regard to ethical consideration when its use appears to be profitable. As a result in this change in policy, strikes appear to be increasing steadily in the United States, as may be seen in the statistics quoted on the following pages.

While these statistics fluctuate in a very irregular way, there can be no doubt that they show a decided increase in the number of strikes, strikers, and employees thrown out of work by strikes. Moreover, comparison of the number of employees thrown out of work with the general wage-earning population indicates, although not so certainly, that the proportion of workingmen annually involved in strikes has been slowly increasing in the twentyfive years covered by the table. Precisely what is responsible for this increase in strikes is difficult to determine. The change in the attitude of labor organizations toward the strike is an important factor, no doubt. But the greatest reason for the increase, in all probability, is the rapid growth of organized labor. New unions are prone to strike. The sudden realization of their new power, and the accumulation of strike funds, tempt them to try their wings. In the long run organization probably exerts a conservative and steadying influence: national machinery is created which curbs the capricious impulses of the local unions; experienced men are usually elected to the more important national offices, and when they are called in to settle a local grievance, they arrive upon the scene of action without personal resentment against the employers involved. These facts create a strong hope, and, indeed, a confident belief, among many of those who have studied the labor question, that when practically all American trades are organized, strikes will steadily decrease as they have in England, where a much larger part of the wage-earning population is organized than in this country.

Labor leaders maintain that strikes strengthen the solidarity of the unions, and encourage the members to make personal sacrifices for the common good, while they force employers to respect the strength of organized labor, and are not, in the long run, particularly costly. The time lost in strikes, they say, merely takes the place of enforced vacations, seasonal stoppages, and other kinds of unemployment with which the average wage earner is normally visited during the course of the year's work. No amount of such dialectic, however, can argue out of existence the injury and destruction resulting from strikes. Many strikes are gravely injurious to the wage earners themselves; and almost all strikes injure employers and the consuming public. From the social

STRIKES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1881-1905

(From the Twenty-first Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor)

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »