Зображення сторінки

The primary, secondary and compound forms of the boycott may be directed against a fellow workman or against an employer of labor. If directed against a workman, it is sometimes called a labor boycott. In enforcing a boycott, effort is sometimes made to induce or coerce customers to withdraw patronage from the “unfair” employer; sometimes, to induce or coerce sellers to cease supplying an "unfair” employer with needed material; sometimes, to induce or coerce employees to quit work. The last named form is known in law as a labor boycott.

Legality of the Boycott. Five states-Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana and Texas-prohibit boycotting by name. Thirty-three states make illegal one or more forms under statutes relating to “Conspiracy,”. “Coercion,” "'Intimidation,” “Interference with Employment,” and “Enticing Employees.”

The common law decisions in the states have generally held the primary boycotts legal. As nearly as can be ascertained, the highest courts have flatly decided against secondary or compound boycotting in some fourteen states-Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington, Louisiana and Wisconsin. In the latter two states, labor boycotts only have been condemned.

In three states—New York, Montana and California-the secondary, and, in the latter two, a form of the compound boycott, have been declared legal. The cases, among others, in which boycotting has been proclaimed legal are:-Lindsay Co. v. Montana Federation of Labor (Montana, 1908) 96 Pac. 127; Parkinson & Co. v. Building Trades Council (Calif., 1908) 98 Pac. 1027; Pierce v. Stablemen's Union (Calif., 1909) 103 Pac. 324; National Protective Association v. Cummings (N. Y., 1902) 63 N. E. 369; and Mills v. U. S. Printing Co. (N. Y., 1904) 99 App. Div. 605.

Clayton Anti-Trust Law and Boycotts. The question now uppermost in the minds of union men is, can the courts similarly reach the funds of the unions under the new Clayton amendment? Little light was thrown on this subject by the recent decision, since the new law, passed long after the commencement of the suit, was not considered in this case.

The two sections of the Clayton bill which bear on this subject are sections 6 and 20. Trade unionists can get little comfort from section 6, which merely states that the existence of labor organizations shall not be jeopardized by the




Sherman law, and that their members shall not be restrained from carrying out the legitimate objects of the organizations in a lawful manner. The effect of this section is probably to prevent the use of injunctions against those acts which are considered lawful under the common law.

The section on which the unionists chiefly rely is section 20 which provides:

(1) “No restraining order or injunction all prohibit any person or persons, whether singly or in concert, from ceasing to patronize or employ any person to such dispute, or from recommending or persuading others by peaceful and lawful means to do

or (2) from doing any act or thing which might lawfully be done in the absence of such dispute by any party thereto; nor (3) shall any of the acts specified in this paragraph be considered or held to be violations of any law of the United States."

The act thus prevents the use of injunctions in federal courts against workers employing the primary boycott and the secondary boycott where mere persuasion is used to induce third parties to cease relations with the firm involved in the dispute. This. passage does not seem, however, to touch tertiary boycotts, nor compound boycotts in which the workers threaten to cease dealings with parties who continue their relations with the boycotted firm. The second part of the section, broadly interpreted, would still further free the use of interstate boycotts from the federal injunctive process, but such interpretation is by no means certain. The third clause seems to free the acts specified not only from the federal injunction, but also from civil and criminal proceedings under the Sherman act and other federal laws, inasmuch as only violators of laws warrant such proceedings.

Until, therefore, that part of the Clayton amendment relating to the activities of labor organizations is definitely interpreted, the only form of boycotting which the unions may feel reasonably safe in pursuing without violating the act, and without being held liable for treble damages, is the peaceful and lawful persuading of third parties to cease relations with a party to the dispute, such persuasion being unaccompanied by threats of loss of business or any coercive


Danbury Hatters' Case and the Supreme Court.

(From The Survey, Jan. 16, 1916.) In 1897 the United Hatters of North America began a determined fight for the closed shop and were said within a few years to have unionized 70 of the 82 principal factories. In 1902 the officers of the union approached Loewe, a Danbury hat manufacturer. He refused to concede their demands. On July 25 of that year 250 employes were called out on strike. Then began the boycott. Unions throughout the country were requested to call on customers; organizers were routed; and boycott advertisements appeared in labor journals. The boycott had its effect. The net damage during the next year or two was placed at about $80,000.

Suit was brought in the United States Circuit Court in Hartford, Conn., August 31, 1903, on the ground of violation of the Sherman anti-trust law. In 1907, Judge James P. Platt of the Circuit Court asked the United States Supreme Court for ruling on section 7 of the Sherman act. This ruling was given by Justice Fuller on February 3, 1908, the boycott by trade unions being brought, to the astonishment of many, within the purview of the act. To the -argument that the statute was not meant to apply to labor unions, the court at that time declared that “the records of Congress show that several efforts were made to exempt by legislation organizations of . . . laborers from the operation of the act, and that all efforts failed.”

Nor did it suffice labor to declare that the framers had given assurances that the act was not aimed at labor unions; that large majorities of the House and Senate had at different times approved of the exemption clause and that Senator Hoar, who claimed to be the real father of the bill, some ten vears later had asserted, on the floor of Congress, that, when . he proposed the law, he had no intention of bringing it to bear against labor unions.

On October 13, 1909, the case was brought to trial, which lasted five months. In charging the jury, Judge Platt overstepped his authority, and declared that the question of damages was "the only question with which they could properly

themselves.” The damages assessed amounted to $232,240.

The case was appealed, however, on a writ of error, to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second District, and on April 10, 1911, the judgment was reversed, and greater proof of the acquiescence of members in the illegal acts of the organization was demanded. A retrial followed and on October 11, 1912, the verdict for the $252,130 judgment was rendered. The jury took the position that the minutes, resolutions, reports, proclamations and printed discussions which the officers and agents of the association publicly proclaimed and circulated among the membership were approved or warranted by the individual members of the association. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in December, 1913. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the decision, January 5, 1915.


BLACKLIST. Definition: An agreement of employers to refuse employment to certain workmen obnoxious to them, generally on account of their activities in behalf of labor.

The blacklist is a weapon used by employers corresponding to the boycott used by labor. Contrary to the boycott, however, the blacklist is generally most effective when its use is secret. Laws have been passed against the blacklist in twenty-six states as follows: Connecticut in New England; Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, No. Carolina and Virginia in the South; Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin in the West; and California, Oregon and Washington on the Pacific Coast.

In many other states blacklisting may be reached by laws under the title of “Discharge, Statement of Cause of,” "Interference with Employment,” etc.

INJUNCTION. A writ of injunction has been described as a judicial process, whereby a party is required to do, or refrain from doing a particular thing.

Injunctions are classified as preliminary and permanent injunctions. The former, the more common, is sometimes called the remedial writ of injunction. It is provisional, its sole object being to preserve the subject in controversy in its then condition without determining any question of right.

A restraining order differs from a temporary injunction in that it remains effective only until an application for an injunction can be heard, while the temporary injunction is effective until the trial of the action in which it is issued.

Injunctions are also defined as mandatory or preventive according as they command a defendant to do or not to do a certain act or acts. Mandatory injunctions are permitted in cases of extreme necessity and hardship when complainant's right is clear.

Bibliography. For further information about the boycott see "Boycotts and the Labor Struggle,” by Harry W. Laidler, Ph.D., N. Y.: John Lane Co. and “Boycotts in American Trade Unions," by Leo Wolman, Ph.D., Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.





Before the Civil War the word Socialism was known in the United States only in connection with a number of Utopian experiments, interesting, and to some extent successful, but not to be included in a sketch of American Socialist parties.

The Civil War marked the end of the pioneer period. Almost immediately the labor unions, existing before this time merely as local or temporary organizations, began to deal with permanent issues, to band themselves together into national federations, and at times to engage in political activity. In 1872 she headquarters of the “International" were transferred to New York, but the organization survived only four years longer. It was in 1874 that various working class elements, including refugee German Marxists and revolutionary American laborers, came together to form an organization which soon became known as the Socialist Labor Party.

For some years the party struggled under great disadvantages. Political activity was sometimes discouraged altogether, and sometimes attempted in temporary alliance with a larger radical group,—the Greenback Party in 1880 and the United Labor Party in New York in 1886.

An important crisis occurred in the early eighties when Anarchism, long ago driven from the International in the person of Bakunin, threatened to win to its propaganda the entire American movement. A new organization, the International Working People's Association, made serious inroads upon the membership of the S. L. Pa and a large element in the Socialist ranks was openly desirous of affiliation. In 1883, however, the situation was faced, and the policy of Anarchism definitely repudiated by the party.

Their relation to the labor unions has always presented a serious problem to the American Socialist parties. By 1886 the Knights of Labor had become powerful, and by 1890 the American Federation of Labor had already begun to overshadow the older body. By this time the S. L. P. had come under the headship of Daniel De Leon, who continued as leader until his death in 1914. Although on friendly terms at the outset with both the Knights and the Federation,

« НазадПродовжити »