ing and graft appeared in this hasty and unprecedented organization, of the nation's effort. But it would seem as if our efforts ought to be directed rather toward improving the machinery of organization, and eliminating the blunders and the opportunities for graft, rather than in discarding the ideal of co-ordination and unity. As our population grows, and our natural resources yield less exuberantly, the problem of efficiency in production and distribution will become more and more acute; and it would seem wise for us to be working in the direction of that unification of effort to which we must eventually come. As a matter of fact, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act never accomplished its purpose. The process of amalgamation has gone pretty steadily on, and recent judicial interpretations have followed the principle that only those combinations which actually work to the injury of the public are to be condemned, not the process of combination itself. We should be proud of this genius for organization; it is one of our most distinctive American traits, and ought to be one of our proudest ideals. It requires great intellectual power, executive ability, imagination, and faith, for its completest realization. But there must be more than that. There must go hand in hand with this organization of production and distribution such a measure of democratic participa tion in control by the workers as shall ensure them a self-respecting life and their just share of the results of the new efficiency. And there must be an increased oversight of these great private organizations by the State, to ensure the public against exploitation, Delicate problems these. But as industry is the backbone of a nation's life, so these problems are the fun damental problems, whose solution is imperative if its future is to be secure. How to preserve and increase that individual initiative and energy in which we so firmly believe, how to increase the dignity and power of individual men, and yet harmonize their efforts into one great synthetic purpose, that is the task set for our young business men to think out. We shall be proud indeed if America leads the way in solving this great problem. SUGGESTED READINGS C. R. Van Hise, Concentration and Control. F. C. McVey, Modern Industrialism. Florence Kelley, Modern Industry. J. W. Jenks, The Trust Problem. E. von Halle, Trusts and Industrial Combinations. S. C. T. Dodd, Combinations, their Use and Abuse. R. T. Ely, Monopolies and Trusts. E. A. Ross, Sin and Society. H. R. Seager, Introduction to Economics, Chap. XXII. Durant Drake, Problems of Conduct, Chap. XXVI, and pp. 379-381. L. D. Brandeis, Other People's Money. P. E. Haworth, America in Ferment, Chap. VIII. Ida Tarbell, History of the Standard Oil Company. Bruce Wyman, Control of the Market. C. P. Steinmetz, America and the New Epoch. 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 |