Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Who are the People?

The Kansas City Journal says of the recent industrial disturbances:

"The people as a rule are just, they are juster today than they ever were before. They are no longer disinterested and indifferent onlookers upon the struggle between labor and capital. Wealth has rights, workingmen have rights, but the public has rights also which must be respected. This constant turmoil, with the people as innocent victims, has become fatiguing and they are going to take a hand shortly. The finish is not yet in sight, but it is gradually and surely approaching."

We are to understand from the foregoing that unless "capital" and "labor" cease this constant turmoil "the people". are going to take a hand shortly. Who are "the people" that are thus going to call "capital" and "labor" to account?

Presumably all persons who work for wages are "labor," and all people who invest their wealth in productive industries and reap profits from the efforts of those who earn wages are "capital." Then we have left as "the people" those persons who neither earn wages nor invest wealth in productive industries. This is probably the divisions of society as the Journal understands the situation.

The fact of the matter is that all persons make up "the people," and a vast majority of "the people" is "labor." When "the people" become more intelligent they will "take a hand," as the Journal says. "The finish is not yet in sight, but it is gradually and surely approaching."

Firemen's Magazine, despairingly. No direct answer is made to this question, but its very asking, together with certain newspaper clippings that are reproduced, make clear the Magazine's attitude on the question. It is this: Retrenchment is simply "Wall street jugglery" in the interests of the capitalist class.

Let it be admitted for the sake of argument that this attitude is the correct one, and let it be asked what does it denote? Is the Firemen's Magazine aware of what it denotes?

Before answering these questions it is necessary to point out that the Firemen's Magazine believes in the pure and simple form of trades unionism. This form of trades unionism asserts that capital and labor-or employer and employe are partners with identical interests, and that pure and simple trades unionism is powerful enough to control the combinations of capital in their attacks on labor. That such control should be necessary between "partners" is an inconsistency that must be overlooked just now. Assertions are being dealt with now.

To return to the answers of the questions propounded: This "Wall street jugglery" denotes first that the pure and simple assertion regarding the partnership of capital and labor is a fraud. Else why should the capitalist class-"Wall street" stands for no other class-want to subjugate the working class by means of the privation and destitution following in the wake of retrenchment? Second, the "Wall street jugglery" denotes that the pure and simple assertion regarding the power of its union is also a fraud. If it were not, could the capitalist class toss the working class like cork on the crest of the wave of its interests, as it is doing? Lastly, this "Wall street jugglery" denotes the tremendous economic power of the capitalist class of this country; a power that can be used without let or hindrance to plunge the country

Labor Organizations and Political into poverty and destitution in order that Organizations.

The Weekly People, a Socialist publication of New York City, comments thus upon an article recently published in the Firemen's Magazine:

The Locomotive Firemen's Magazine for November is in a puzzled and apprehensive state of mind regarding railroad retrenchment. It asks "What's up?" and then expresses the belief that "something is brewing; but what is brewing is not disclosed." It finds many contradictions in the situation. Railroad earnings are increased, yet railroad securities are being hammered down by Wall street manipulators to panic quotations. "Prosperity is said to be over," and yet "our prospects were never brighter and the railroads are preparing for a car shortage and freight blockade before the holidays reach us." "What is the purpose of this Wall street jugglery?" asks the

the capitalist class may profit thereby. And the Firemen's Magazine upholds this tremendous power by upholding the capitalist theory that capitalists and laborers are partners with mutual interests. There are no mutual interests between the sandbagged and the sandbagger.

who believe as it does, should take this The Firemen's Magazine, and all those lesson to heart. As long as the working class upholds capitalism, so long will it continue to give to the capitalist class the control of the tremendous economic power that makes of the working class a robbed and subjugated class. Not until this tremendous economic power is destroyed by making the capital upon which it is based collective property will the working class be free.

Until this occurs the assertions of pure and simple unionism will be just so much wasted breath and paper and ink.

The publication quoted makes the mistake that is typical of the Socialist move

Mr. Blue-"Mark my word, we're going to have a terrible winter. The autumn has been so fine that we'll have to pay dearly for it this winter" The fall was pleasant to pay up for the bad weather we had two

Mr. Gladd "O, I think not. winters ago"

[graphic][subsumed]

Mr. Blue-"And we'll have dreadful suffering and sickness and sorrow. The street car strike will spread to all lines and will be long and bitter, with a horrible reign of terror and bloodshed" Mr. Gladd "O, I reckon not. Walking's healthy exercise, and nobody'll suffer except the innocent bystander, and he can go into a saloon and get warm. And, besides, I think the strike will be settled in a few days"

[graphic]

Mr. Blue-"Everything seems to be going wrong. Labor difficulties everywhere, winter coming, coal strikes probably, and I read that the sun is gradually cooling, which will cause frightfully cold weather. I sometimes feel as if I might as well give up the struggle "

Mr. Gladd-"O, cheer up. Spring is only four months away, and you'll be glad next summer that the sun is cooling off a bit "

MR. LUGUBRIOUS BLUE AND MR. SMILEY GLADD DISCUSS THE SITUATION (From the Chicago Daily Tribune.)

ment. The average Socialist can not comprehend the difference between a labor organization and a political organization. A labor organization presumes to include within its ranks all who are employed in the trade or industry which the organization represents. What members' religion or political beliefs are do not concern the labor organization. If Catholics and Protestants disagree upon the issues of the Reformation they must settle those differences without involving the interests of the labor organization to which they both may belong. If Christians and Hebrews fight to prove or disprove the divinity of Christ, they must do their fighting outside of a meeting of the labor union that claims them both as members. It may be that ninety per cent. of the members of a union in Pennsylvania are Republicans, or that ninety-nine per cent. of the members of a union in Mississippi are Democrats, these political majorities can not coerce the insignificant minorities. Just as a labor union guarantees to every member the right to his religious belief, so does a labor union guarantee to every member the right to his political belief.

Socialism is as much a political movement as is Republicanism. Just as Socialism is denounced today for its "radical contentions" so was Republicanism denounced in the days of its infancy, and for the same reason. Socialism today proposes to dispossess "capital" of its property, as Republicanism of fifty years ago proposed, and did dispossess "capital" of its property. That wage earners should differ in their opinions as to political policies is most natural, but to permit Socialists, Republicans, Democrats, Prohibitionists, Populists, Conservatives, or Liberals to use a labor organization as a vehicle in which to carry forward their especial political propaganda would certainly be resented by those whose rights in the labor organization had been restricted.

The "pure and simple form of trades unionism" assures to every Socialist member that the Republicans or Democrats shall not be permitted to use the union to defeat Socialism, and, to be just, Republican and Democratic members are assured that Socialists shall not be permitted to use the union to defeat them. Real labor unions can not advocate or indorse any political party because they should guarantee freedom of religious and political beliefs to all members.

[blocks in formation]

Those people who are sorely afflicted with Parryitis have heard from some source, presumably from Parry himself, that "only seven per cent. of working people are members of unions, and, therefore, are not authorized to speak for labor." This may be true, if the intent is to convey the idea that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen is not authorized to represent the unorganized railway clerks, but it is a fact that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen has authority to represent locomotive firemen, for there are about as many members in this union as there are eligible men working at the trade represented by the union. Of course there are locomotive firemen, here and there, who are eligible for membership and yet refuse to assist in the work of the Brotherhood, but then we find this same class of people in every walk of life. We find some citizens who refuse to pay their taxes even when their Government is in financial distress; we find others that refuse to take up arms in their country's defense, unless conscripted or bribed with a bounty. The pension records show that the man who was drafted, or who demanded a bounty, is the loudest in his boasts of "saving the Union," and among the first to claim a pension. That there are such men firing locomotives should be no discredit to the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, for wherever you find a great number of men you will find men who shirk.

If we are to include all workers; the millions of negroes in the South, the millions of farmhands, the millions of clerks, and the millions of others who have never developed the intelligence necessary to lead them to form unions, it may be a fact that "only seven per cent. of working people are members of unions." But with these millions of unintelligent, underpaid, unorganized workers, the successful unions have naught to do, except to advise them to organize. It would be If these facts were understood, and ob- interesting to know what per cent. of en

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small]

If we could but settle all disputes arising be prejudiced in its favor. This practice

between masters and servants by arbitration the industrial world would be as placid as a mill pond, so some think. But there are those who have little or no faith in arbitration of any kind, much less the so-called compulsory arbitration.

The human mind is most fallible when deciding between right and wrong, for prejudice is a characteristic of the human mind, and prejudice has no place in arbitration. The serious effect of prejudice upon the mind has been recognized by the

has become so common that an arbitrator so selected is supposed to support the contention of the side he represents, regardless of the evidence and of what justice demands. Such a division on partisan lines of members of boards of arbitration has nearly always resulted in "deadlocks," which leave the dispute still unsettled. Recognizing the prejudice of members of boards of arbitration so selected it has become the custom for such boards to mutually agree upon another

8

person, who is presumed to be fairer, more just, less partial than the arbitrators first selected. This practice is evidence that neither side of a dispute has confidence in the honesty and integrity of arbitrators selected by the other party. If it so happens that the "odd" member selected is no more just, no less impartial than the other arbitrators are known to be, how can a just award emanate from arbitration? As the public has now learned to look only to the "odd" member of an arbitration board for the real arbitration of the dispute, would not such boards be of greater utility if composed only of the "odd" member, for the other members are but advocates representing the side by which they were selected?

Sometimes arbitration boards are selected by others than the contending disputants, and then all arbitrators are presumed to be impartial. An instance of this class of arbitration was the appointment by the President of the Anthracite Strike Arbitration Commission. The fact that the conclusions of the commission were indorsed by every member of the board is evidence that partisan prejudice was not permitted to enter into the consideration of the matters in dispute. An arbitration of this nature is far more just to both disputants than one whose members are made up of partisans of the contending parties, and which for the purpose of securing justice has to resort to an "odd" man, selected by the partisans already upon the board.

With a truly nonpartisan board of arbitration its award presumably represents the consensus of public opinion at the period at which the award is made. If a chattel servant (slave) had escaped from his master during the days of slavery, an impartial arbitration would have restored him to the servitude of his master. A hundred years ago an impartial arbitration would have decided that the servant had naught to do with the character of his work or with the wages paid for same; the master's rights were not to be curtailed by will of the servant.

It is evident, therefore, that if human progress rested upon arbitration alone no progress would be made. Nothing would be permitted that in any manner departed from what public opinion believed to be right, and public opinion has never kept pace with reform. Public opinion is what reform agitators has wrung from a conservative mind. Public opinion indorsed the brutal practices of the Roman arena until Christian agitators whipped

the public mind into moral rectitude. Public opinion approved chattel slavery, even in the Northern States, until abolition agitators shamed those who had no financial interests at stake. Public opinion crucified Christ, and his countrymen were never convinced of their error. Public opinion protests that which is is right. Public opinion detests radical reformers of its own period but reveres the radical reforms of its "wise forefathers." The shot fired by Booth was but an echo of the public opinion of ten years previous. An abolitionist was detested by the public opinion of 1740 as earnestly as a Socialist is detested by the public opinion of 1903. Public opinion applauded the execution of John Brown in 1859 and public opinion built monuments to glorify John Brown while yet the same public lived. Taking this fickleness of public opinion into consideration and the fact that the most just arbitration only reflects public opinion, we may well believe that if left entirely to arbitration the social evolution would be arrested.

But with all its defects arbitration is far better than industrial war. No labor organization should resort to a strike until it has proposed to leave the dispute to arbitration, and has been refused by the master. Resort to arbitration should not depend upon the prospects of success, but because of determination to do right. In the past we have seen labor unions refuse to arbitrate because it believed it could gain more by strikes, and we have seen masters protest that they had "nothing to arbitrate" because they believed that with the aid of strike-breakers and the militia they could defeat their dissatisfied employes. Unless both master and servant enter into arbitration with a spirit of fairness its award will only postpone the inevitable conflict.

Arbitration should decide only the contentions of the disputants, and not include in its award something foreign to the original dispute. In the city of Chicago employes of a gas company, who had formed a union, arbitrated with the employing corporation disputes concerning wages and rules of employment. The award required the servants to abandon their union, and because they "repudiated the arbitration" the public press denounced them. Suppose the award had required the stockholders to abandon the employing corporation, would they have not repudiated the arbitration?

A practice of arbitrators that has become common is the "splitting of the dif

« ZurückWeiter »