CHAPTER XXI

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

THE combination and co-operation of business men have made possible the great achievements of American business greater production, improved product, larger profits, lower prices. But these economic

gains have not, for the most part, resulted in any great improvement in the status of the employees, except as the latter have been able, in their turn, to bring pressure to bear through organizations of their own. The labor-unions thus necessitated have also many other achievements to their credit. They have helped to assimilate and Americanize heterogeneous groups of immigrants, have promoted friendliness and mutual help among the laboring classes, and in many ways served their welfare.

Thus the unions are now an accepted part of our American life. Theodore Roosevelt, speaking at Columbus, September 10, 1910, said, "If I were a wage worker, I should certainly join a union. . . . In our modern industrial system the union is just as necessary as the corporation, and in the modern field of industrialism, it is often an absolute necessity that there should be collective bargaining by the employees with the employers; and such collective bargaining is but one of the many benefits conferred by wisely and honestly organized unions that act properly."

To offset this good record, it must be admitted that the unions have often retarded industrial progress and even the efficient working of existing machinery. They have at times sought to restrict the number of

apprentices in a trade, opposed trade schools, opposed scientific management, in order to make more work, insisted on the retention of incompetent employees, and upon a uniform wage to all, without regard to efficiency. They have sometimes been in the grip of grafting leaders, who have sought to use their power for their personal enrichment. They have sometimes broken their agreements with employers, and declared strikes in violation of contract. In short, like all other forms of human organization, they come under the control, from time to time, of all sorts of leaders, wise and unwise, scrupulous and selfish, and have a mixed record of good and evil-whether better or worse than that of business firms, trusts, and financial rings, or than that of political parties, it would be difficult to say.

It is fair to say, however, that some or all of the above-mentioned tactics have been adopted by unions because, in their judgment, they were necessary means for the attainment of their end-the bettering of the status of labor. And however shortsighted their methods at times have been, it is beyond dispute that they have been the greatest force that has made for higher wages, shorter hours, and better working conditions. Even the attainment of decently humane conditions for working women and children has been mostly the work of the unions, in the face of strenuous opposition from the employers. It is no wonder that organized labor thinks of itself "not as a selfish group which is extorting all it can from the community, but as a group which, under the conditions of a modern industrial society, is now occupying the firing line in the battle for human liberation."

The labor-unions are able to ameliorate the lot of the workers in two ways, by influencing legislation,

and by direct bargaining with the employers. The latter has been by far the more efficacious method hitherto. There has been little agreement among labor-leaders upon political measures, and no concerted action at the polls. But economic pressure brought to bear upon the owners of industry through the power of the workers to cease working has had marked effects.

Whether we shall approve of the exercise of this power depends upon our judgment as to the desirability of the ends sought. Undoubtedly in many cases organized labor has demanded more than could reasonably be granted under existing conditions. But in general, the status of the workers has been unnecessarily low, and the gains won through collective action desirable, for the community as a whole, as well as for the workers. Hence nearly all disinterested students of the industrial situation have approved the principle of collective bargaining. Public Commissions on Industrial Relations, Church Conferences, Presidents of the United States—practically everyone except certain representatives of the employing class declare the method necessary; so that it is now firmly established as a principle of Americanism. Recently the Federal Council of the Churches declared that "the safety and development of the workers, the best interest of the employers, the security, and progress of the community all demand it."

The success of collective bargaining depends, obviously, upon the completeness with which the workers are organized. If only a part of those in a given industrial concern belong to the unions, and the rest refuse to obey their leadership, the employer can defy their demands. Hence the earnest efforts to unionize

laborers, and the bitterness of the resentment felt by the members of the unions toward the "scabs"workers who continue to work when the union decides to strike, or who take the places of strikers. If it is true that the betterment of the lot of the workers is made, for the most part, only by the collective effort and sacrifice of the workers united in their unions, then the worker who refuses to join in this effort and sacrifice, who continues to accept his pay when his comrades are wageless, and helps to make their effort and sacrifice fruitless, is naturally regarded as a traitor to the common cause and deserving of the utmost contempt.

The organization of laborers along the lines of their separate crafts has stood in the way of their collective action. Hence the movement toward industrial unions whose membership shall be coextensive with the workers in an entire industry. And hence the demand for the Closed Shop, that is, a shop in which only union members are allowed to work. If such a requirement were to become universal, all the workers would join the unions, and no one would be excluded from positions. But of course, this is precisely what the autocratically-minded employers do not wish. They follow the ancient maxim, Divide et impera. In particular, the owners of some of the greatest corporations have fought the unionization of their employees, under the slogan, The Open Shop.

The Open Shop idea appeals to our American spirit of individualism; it insists upon the right of each laborer to decide for himself whether or not he will join the union. But if the unions are right in saying, United we stand, divided we fall, they must blame this individualistic attitude as vigorously as a nation at war condemns the citizens who disrupt its unity.

The employer, or the owner of industrial securities, is not disinterested; the success of a labor-movement may lessen his profits or his dividends. And so his conscientious fervor for the open shop ideal is not quite convincing. And when we find directors of corporations quietly discharging men who have joined the unions, and even employing, as many do, spies among the workers to spot those who show signs of favoring union ideas, we realize that their avowed advocacy of the Open Shop often masks an actual determination to keep the employees unorganized and so helpless.

That acute critic of American institutions, Mr. Dooley, saw clearly the laborers' side of the Open Shop controversy.

"What's all this that's in the papers about the open shop?" asked Mr. Hennessey.

"Why, don't you know?" said Mr. Dooley. "Really I'm surprised at yer ignorance, Hinnissey. What is th' open shop? Sure, 'tis where they kape the doors open to accommodate th' constant stream av' min comin' in t' take jobs cheaper than th' min what has th' jobs. 'Tis like this, Hinnissey: Suppose wan av these freeborn citizens is workin' in an open shop f'r th' princely wages av wan large iron dollar a day av tin hour. Along comes anither son-av-gun and he sez to th' boss 'Oi think Oi could handle th' job nicely f'r ninety cints.' 'Sure,' sez th' boss, and th' wan dollar man gets out into th' crool woruld t' exercise his inalienable roights as a freeborn American citizen an' scab on some other poor devil. An' so it goes on, Hinnissey. An' who gits th' benefit? Thrue, it saves th' boss money, but he don't care no more f'r money thin he does f'r his right eye.