simple collective bargaining is usually sufficient to keep the membership loyal and obtain from employers fair rates of pay. In the unskilled trades, on the other hand, where a period of apprenticeship is wholly superfluous, some more artificial protection of the standard of life is employed, like the "policy of the closed shop "; and this naturally forces the union, in turn, to place great dependence upon the strike and boycott. Before condemning a union for employing some of these policies, therefore, or contrasting it unfavorably with highly conservative unions, like the railway brotherhoods, it is necessary to inquire whether or not, like the railway brotherhoods, it is protected by some natural condition of the business which makes peaceable collective bargaining comparatively easy. The Problem of the Closed-Shop Policy. It is impossible to pass any general verdict upon the justice of the closed-shop policy. Most Americans are inclined to condemn it offhand as an attempt to deprive the non-union man of his "sacred right to work." They forget that the union man enforces the closedshop policy for an exercise of his "sacred right of quitting work." Except where violence is employed, the union which is attempting to enforce a closed-shop policy threatens to do nothing worse than direct its members to quit the employment of the proprietor of the open shop in question. Two equally "sacred and inalienable rights" clash in this contest, and it is plain that no decision concerning the legitimacy of the closed-shop policy can be determined offhand by applying the touchstone of individual rights. If we would know whether a strike against non-union men is justifiable or unjustifiable, we must inquire into all the surrounding circumstances and the manner in which the strike is conducted. If the strike is conducted peaceably, and if the union in question is an open union, cordially inviting the "scabs " to enter and share its benefits; if the rate of wages and other conditions of employment demanded by the union men are reasonable in view of the cost of living and other similar conditions; if the "scabs " involved, by accepting less than a living wage or other harmful conditions of employment, are working even though of necessity to undermine the American standard of living; then we have no hesitation in saying that the employment of the closedshop policy on the part of the union is thoroughly justifiable. So far as the law is concerned the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that an employer perhaps a large corporation may discharge an employee for belonging to a union, for any reason or for no reason; and a recent act of Congress empowers combinations of workingmen to do in trade disputes anything which they might lawfully do as individuals. The law or federal law at least is apparently impartial. But from the standpoint of equity and morals employers frequently discharge men for indefensible reasons and unions frequently attempt to enforce the closed-shop rule for purposes or by methods which deserve to be condemned. We must not confine our attention wholly to the injury done to the non-union man. The non-union man frequently does a real injury to his fellow-workers by accepting wages or other conditions of employment that are inconsistent with the American mode of living. The price cutter in the labor market is not ordinarily a social benefactor. The weakest, dullest, and least enterprising laborer exerts an influence upon the general level of wages out of all proportion to his importance or his deserts. If this be true, the man who cuts the standard rate of wages may do a grave social injury, and there is justification for those who peaceably combine to prevent him from doing his destructive work. It must be remembered, however, that these conclusions are based upon the assumption that the union is an open union and that the strike is conducted without intimidation or 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. Limitation of Output. 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 pacemakers or taskmasters, 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 pacemakers and to prescribe a maximum wageusually 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, trade 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 practices it, but makes it impossible for 66 the employer to deal with the union as a seller of honest goods, and in this way tends to undermine the whole foundation of trade 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 given to "go-easy" habits of work. The habit of stealthy loafing is found at its worst in certain unorganized trades or occupations, 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 by observers in close contact with the facts 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 a very 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 activities, or for the support and encouragement of strikes. Union insurance is 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 Cigar - Makers' International Union has many claims to be considered the most successful American labor organization; and its success is in a 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 trade union is the strike. Unfortunately, also, the weapon is far too frequently used. Several generations ago most trade unions, while they vehemently defended their right to strike, cordially indorsed arbitration and apparently looked upon the strike as a weapon of last resort. Today, the average trade 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. The statistics of strikes published in the Twenty-first Annual Report of the (United States) Commissioner of Labor, in the recurrent reports on strikes and lockouts of the Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics, and in similar reports of other state labor bureaus, indicate that strikes are steadily increasing in the United States. 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. Precisely what is responsible |