UC-NRLF 
 
OPEN SHOP 
 
 ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 FOR 
 
 DEBATERS \ 
 
 A REFERENCE BOOK FOR USE OF TEACHERS, 
 STUDENTS AND PUBLIC SPEAKERS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS 
 ii 
 
 1921 
 
GIFJ 
 
. 
 
 Table of Contents 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER I Definitions and Introduction 5 
 
 j CHAPTER II Labor Attitude of the National Association of 
 
 Manufacturers 17 
 
 CHAPTER III Structure and Finances of Labor Unions 23 
 
 CHAPTER IV Trade Union Development in Brief 29 
 
 ^ CHAPTER V Do Open Shop Employers Hire Unionists? 36 
 
 Will Open Shop Success Destroy Unions? 
 Can Unions Be Made Constructive? 
 
 ^CHAPTER VI Collective Bargaining 49 
 
 j CHAPTER VII Irresponsibility of Unions 70 
 
 J CHAPTER VIII Outside Interference 81 
 
 CHAPTER IX Union Apprenticeship Rules 84 
 
 CHAPTER X Output Restriction 93 
 
 CHAPTER XI Open Shop Efficiency and Production Comparison, 119 
 
 J CHAPTER XII Strikes General 132 
 
 CHAPTER XIII Strikes Sympathetic and Jurisdictional 138 
 
 CHAPTER XIV Industrial Warfare 149 
 
 CHAPTER XV Unlawful Acts Condoned by Unions 161 
 
 ^/CHAPTER XVI Monopoly Aspects of Closed Shop Unionism... 165 
 
 X- prA~pTER XVII Competition and the Closed Shop 181 
 
 How the Closed Shop Raises Prices 
 
 \_CffApTER XVIII Community Benefits of the Open Shop 188 
 
 CHAPTER XIX The Rights of Independent Labor 198 
 
 CHAPTER XX Some Ethical Aspects of the Open Shop 206 
 
 CHAPTER XXI Views of Prominent Americans 214 
 
 CHAPTER XXII Legal Aspects Public Regulation 219 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII Typical Debaters' Arguments. 233 
 
 461918 
 
DEFINITIONS AND INTRODUCTION 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Definitions and Introduction 
 
 This Encyclopedia is designed to meet the needs of debaters 
 seeking information concerning the open shop. But it should also 
 be of value to teachers and students of economics, especially in the 
 field of labor relations. Investigators studying such topics as 
 strikes, union apprenticeship, etc., will likewise find much useful 
 material. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that the Open Shop question is 
 simply one phase of the great industrial problem. There are 
 other important phases of that problem which must be solved, 
 but perhaps none of them concerns more directly the relations 
 that shall exist between employers and workers, between fellow 
 workers, and between industry and the public. The public is 
 more and more realizing that it is vitally concerned in these 
 problems. There is scarcely an industrial dispute which does not 
 adversely affect thousands, in some cases millions, of people who 
 are not immediate parties to the controversy. The public itself 
 is realizing this ; the ever-increasing complexity of the industrial 
 structure and the resultant inter-dependence between men has 
 forced their attention. The Winnipeg and Seattle general strikes, 
 the outlaw railroad strike, the coal and steel strikes, and the 
 Boston police strike have forcefully reminded the public that it 
 must take an intelligent and active part in the problems of indus- 
 try. We believe that when the public obtains the real facts as 
 to these problems and the principles concerned that in the long 
 run it will decide rightly. 
 
 The manufacturers certainly do not deny the right of the 
 public to concern itself with industrial problems. Systems and 
 organizations are justified only as long as they advance the 
 welfare of society as a whole. There are principles of social 
 justice, of justice to all parties concerned, which should prevail. 
 They will prevail when and because the public takes enough 
 interest to act. But the welfare of society must rest on more 
 than principles of justice, for efficiency must be maintained. 
 There must be as little waste effort as possible. Are the means 
 adapted to the ends? Concretely, is the Closed Shop based on 
 principles of justice and is it efficient in serving the wants and 
 needs of society? Is it sound economically and does it conform 
 to American political institutions? 
 
.'/, ^ ' j /* c ***| " -' r '- , * 
 
 j r 1 r ( ' ' < J ' 
 
 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 To answer this the facts must all be known. The National 
 Association of Manufacturers fully recognizes such to be the 
 case. It desires to place the facts concerning the Open Shop and 
 the Closed Shop before the public for its consideration, so that 
 it can decide which theory and system of operation is based on 
 the principles of justice and economics. 
 
 Except where otherwise noted the statements in this Ency- 
 clopedia have been prepared by the Open Shop Department of 
 the National Association of Manufacturers. 
 
 We have endeavored to obtain reliable data. We are not to 
 be considered as endorsing the opinions of all the workers and 
 employers who are quoted. 
 
 Facts Are Enough 
 
 In pointing out the specific reasons for opposition to the 
 closed shop we will present only facts which cannot be success- 
 fully contradicted. We will condemn no organizations of em- 
 ployes simply because of the acts of individual members. Our 
 opposition is based upon the very nature of the closed shop 
 organizations and upon the rules and practices they adopt, follow 
 and condone. 
 
 We do not need to rely on abuse, ridicule, and vituperation 
 in condemning the closed shop. The simple recital of the inherent 
 results in operation of closed shop unionism and the citation of 
 the rules of the unions brings out clearly the inefficient and 
 destructive nature of these policies. The open shop is efficient 
 and constructive, bringing service to the community. 
 
 No system or policy in either politics or industry can per- 
 manently succeed without the support of public opinion; the 
 public must decide if conditions shown by these facts are best 
 adapted to bring about efficiency and harmony in industry. r 
 
 The Definitions 
 
 The first step is definition. We take our definition of the 
 Closed Shop from the Bridgemens Magazine, official organ of 
 the Iron Workers' Union. Their definition is as follows. (Issue 
 of December, 1905) : 
 
 Closed shop, then, is the term for a shop, factory, store or other 
 industrial place where workmen cannot obtain employment without being 
 members in good standing of the labor union of their trade. This is 
 demanded by the unions * * * They insist that the shop shall be 
 closed against all employes who, not already belonging to the union of 
 their trade, refuse to join it. 
 
DEFINITIONS AND INTRODUCTION 
 
 The Printing Pressmen, Constitution and By-Laws, 1909, 
 declare : 
 
 The words "union pressroom" as herein employed shall be construed 
 to refer only to such pressrooms as are operated wholly by union 
 employes, in which union rules prevail, and in which the union has been 
 formally^ recognized by the employer. 
 
 The Open Shop exists wherever and whenever the following 
 labor principle enunciated in a unanimous report by the Anthra- 
 cite Commission, appointed by President Roosevelt, in 1903, is 
 practiced : 
 
 No person shall be refused employment, or in any way discriminated 
 against on account of membership or non-membership in any labor organi- 
 zation, and there shall be no discrimination against, or interference with, 
 any employe who is not a member of any labor organization by members 
 of such organization. 
 
 The Bridgemen's Magazine further says : 
 
 If the employer will not yield without coercion, and the union is 
 unable to coerce him, then non-unionists as well as unionists may obtain 
 employment and the establishment is consequently known as an open shop. 
 
 These definitions bring out the following points clearly: 
 
 (1) Under the closed shop only members in good standing of the 
 unions may obtain employment. Open shop employers refuse to dis- 
 criminate on account of "membership or non-membership in any labor 
 organization" and "non-unionists as well as unionists may obtain employ- 
 ment." 
 
 (2) The closed shop "shall be closed" against men who "refuse to 
 join" the union. The open shop denies the right of union members to 
 discriminate against "any employe who is not a member of a labor organi- 
 zation." 
 
 (3) The closed shop makes the employer agree to employ only 
 union members, and tells the independent worker that if he "refuses to 
 join" the union he shall not have work. 
 
 (4) In the closed shop "union rules prevail." The employer, in 
 other words, must yield to the "union rules" where they affect the conduct/' 
 of his establishment. 
 
 The "Union Shop" 
 
 Sometimes the closed shop apologists insist that the term 
 "closed shop" is unfair, and that it has been coined by opponents 
 of "labor" to injure "labor." 
 
 Dr. Frank T. Stockton, in a monograph entitled "The Closed 
 Shop in American Trade Unions," says on page 15, after a 
 careful study of the history of t the terms used: 
 
 "It is safe to say that the present meaning of the term 'closed shop' 
 
8 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 was developed independently by the trade unions themselves and has 
 not been foisted upon them by their opponents." 
 
 The term which the closed shop advocates sometimes say 
 they prefer is "union shop," which means the same as the 
 appelation "closed shop." 
 
 Thus, Dr. Stockton, in the work quoted above, which was 
 published by Johns Hopkins University, says on page 1 1 : 
 
 '"The term 'union shop' now means identically the same thing as 
 closed shop." 
 
 The "Preferential Shop" 
 
 Reference is likewise made to the "preferential shop," in 
 which employers do not agree to employ only union members, 
 but do agree to give them preference in employment. The expe- 
 rience of New Zealand and Australia demonstrates that the 
 "preferential shop," which distinctly includes the principle of 
 discrimination, amounts in nearly all cases to the "closed shop," 
 in which it is impossible for a non-union or independent worker 
 to obtain employment. 
 
 That this is so is supported by a letter written by the 
 President of the American Federation of Labor early in Febru- 
 ary, 1921, to a high school debater in &ew Jersey. He said: 
 
 "The 'preferential shop' is really a union shop * * * The non- 
 members are expected to join the union later on * * * A 'prefer- 
 ential shop' gradually becomes a union shop if a sufficient number of 
 workers in the trade are eventually hired." 
 
 Bear in mind Dr. Stockton's statement that the "union shop" 
 is the "closed shop." Miss Helen Marot, from 1905 to 1913 
 executive secretary of the Women's Trade Union League of New 
 York, in her book "American Labor Unions" refers on page 120 
 to "a union shop, called outside of union circles a 'closed shop,' 
 that is, a shop where the owner has agreed to employ only 
 members of a union." 
 
 So the terms "union shop" and "preferential shop" are in 
 reality only other terms for "closed shop." 
 
 (The following definitions and comments were published in 
 the "Open Shop News" December 21, 1920, of the Twin City, 
 Benton Harbor and St. Joseph, Michigan, Employers Asso- 
 ciation.) 
 
 CLOSED SHOP. This is a term used by trade unions when referring 
 to shops, stores, or factories with whom they have an agreement to employ 
 none but union members. 
 
 If a man owns his own home, is the father of a large family, is 100% 
 
DEFINITIONS AND INTRODUCTION 
 
 patriotic, is a first-class workman, working for the interest of his company 
 and community, he cannot work in a Closed Shop unless he carries a 
 "trade union card." 
 
 NON-UNION SHOP. This is an expression which is used by trade 
 union agitators when referring to firms who will not employ members of 
 any trade union. 
 
 History will show that no firm elected to operate on the non-union 
 basis unless at some time it became difficult to get cooperation from their 
 employes while the employes were under union domination. It has 
 become necessary in some instances for firms to refuse employment to 
 applicants who are members of trade unions. 
 
 I OPEN SHOP is an expression given to firms or corporations who hire 
 I anybody capable of performing the task for which they are hired, regard-y 
 I less of whether or not they belong to a trade union. 
 
 What About the "Non-Union Shop?" 
 
 Not all employers whd have no union labor in their employ 
 operate non-union shops. The truth is that most unions forbid 
 their members working alongside independent workers. They 
 also refuse to arbitrate the question of the closed shop. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Benjamin Osborne, President of 
 the Portland, Oregon, Building Trades Council, before the Indus- 
 trial Relations Commission, August 22, 1914, page 4715 of the 
 record.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Do the members of your crafts or your unions work 
 with non-union men in this city? 
 
 MR. OSBORNE : Not with the non-union men of its own craft. We at 
 times we work all trades work a closed shop to their own trade. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: How about your own line of work? 
 
 MR. OSBORNE: Well, my own line of work; we work a closed shop 
 within our own trade. But there are times that we work on buildings 
 where there is some other trade that is not organized, but not with our 
 own organization. This is an understanding with the building trades 
 council that we have, as I said before, all of the large contractors work 
 union men. The work and all subcontracts are let to union firms. There 
 is only one large contractor in the city that operates non-union; and, of 
 course, there is some smaller contractors that operate non-union. And we 
 have got that understanding among ourselves that certain of those small 
 contractors, if they let a subcontract to one of the union firms, we allow 
 the members of that organization to go and work there. That is in order 
 to strengthen, and looking to that time when we can all work on all jobs 
 or refuse to work on them. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. E. B. Ault, editor of the Seattle 
 Union Record, official organ of the Central Labor Council, before 
 the Industrial Relations Commission, August 12, 1914.) 
 
 Acting Chairman Commons: Do the unions of this locality consider 
 
io OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 it an essential thing to obtain the right to quit work in case a non-union 
 man is employed? 
 
 MR. AULT: So far as my knowledge goes all of the unions affiliated 
 with the American Federation of Labor do not require the closed shop 
 conditions. The larger number do, I believe, and in this city the general 
 sentiment is that the workers should have the right to quit work that 
 is, the organized worker should quit unless all of the men are organized. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN COMMONS: But they all consider that is essential? 
 
 MR. AULT: We consider that that is essential. I believe that is the 
 general sentiment of the labor movement of this city. We consider it 
 essential that, in case we have our work with a firm, that our members 
 only should be employed. 
 
 Forms of the Closed Shop 
 
 (Extracts from "The Closed Shop in American Trades 
 Unions," by Dr. Frank T. Stockton. Published by Johns Hop- 
 kins University in 1911. Dr. Stockton here explains the different 
 forms of the closed shop and the methods used to extend it by 
 the closed shop labor organizations.) 
 
 The great majority of American labor unions fall into the class that 
 accepts the principle of the closed shop rule. Whether they insist upon 
 its enforcement or not depends largely upon expediency. It often happens 
 that a union which would like to enforce the closed shop is compelled to 
 tolerate non-unionists. The Commercial Telegraphers and th Textile 
 Workers, for instance, allow their members to work in open shops 
 because they are not strong enough to do otherwise. In every closed shop 
 union there are times when it is inexpedient to attempt the exclusion of 
 non-unionists. There are thus a few open shops in the jurisdiction of 
 almost every closed shop union. It is customary for the unions to insist 
 that members employed in these shops shall receive union wages. In rnany 
 cases the unions also require that non-union men shall be employed 
 under union conditions before union men can go into the shops. 
 
 The Simple Closed Shop 
 
 In its simplest form the principle of the closed shop is embodied in 
 the rule that members of a trade union shall not work in an establishment 
 where non-unionists are employed, unless such non-unionists fall within 
 classes exempted by the rules of the union from the requirement of mem- 
 bership. When the exclusion of non-members is carried no further than 
 this, we may say that a union enforces the "simple closed shop." 
 
 The Extended Closed Shop 
 
 The application of the closed-shop principle is not limited to a single 
 shop, but in many unions has been extended to cover two or more shops. 
 These separate shops taken together are considered by the unions as one 
 shop, and the principle of exclusion is enforced in them as if they were 
 a single shop. 
 
 The simplest form of the extended closed shop is found in union 
 regulations concerning subcontracting. In the building trades a general' 
 
DEFINITIONS AND INTRODUCTION n 
 
 contractor often sublets part of the work on a building to another con- 
 tractor. Where the job is a large one several of these subcontractors may 
 employ men at work which falls within the jurisdiction of a single union. 
 Thus one of them may have the subcontract for laying floors, another* 
 for erecting doors, and another for setting window-frames. In each of 
 these cases the subcontractor would employ carpenters. At the same 
 time the general contractor may have reserved some carpentry work to 
 be done under his immediate direction. 
 
 When a general contractor sublets work, he usually feels that he is 
 not responsible to the union for the method in which the subcontractor 
 conducts the work. Since he himself does not hire the workmen, he 
 regards each subcontract as a separate job or shop. In his opinion if one 
 of his subcontractors employs non-union men, it should not be a cause 
 of complaint by the union against other subcontractors or against him- 
 self. Each subcontractor who employs union men maintains likewise 
 that since he exercises no control over the general contractor or over 
 other subcontractors, strikes should not be called against him if they 
 employ non-unionists. Many unions, however, insist that all the sub- 
 contracts shall be regarded together as a single job or shop, and demand 
 that all workmen in their trade employed on the contract shall be 
 unionists. 
 
 Tell Employers What to Do 
 
 In the building trades the bricklayers and masons have been particu- 
 larly active in this policy. Many of their local "working codes" and 
 agreements have provided that "fair" employers shall not sublet work to 
 non-union contractors. The national executive board has also decided 
 in several cases that it is not permissible fo* union bricklayers and masons 
 to work with non-union members for a "fair" firm which has sublet to 
 non-union employers or for a "fair" employer who has subcontracted 
 from an "unfair" firm. Union members are thus prohibited from working 
 for one subcontractor if any other on the same building employs non- 
 unionists of the same trade. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the 
 Granite Cutters, and the Bridge and Structural Iron Workers also oppose 
 the employment to or from an "unfair" employer. The Bridge and 
 Structural Iron Workers, however, are forced to allow their members to 
 work for "fair" employers who subcontract from the American Bridge 
 Company and other large "unfair" concerns which are subsidiary to or in 
 close alliance with the United States Steel Corporation. These firms 
 control so much important work throughout the country that unless the 
 union made some concession its members would be deprived of much* 
 employment. 
 
 The extended closed shop has also been enforced by certain unions 
 in cases where a manufacturer buys from another manufacturer part of 
 the goods he sells. The two establishments, in these cases, have been 
 considered a single concern. This policy is almost entirely confined to 
 unions in which the label is important. None of these unions, as for 
 example the Cigar Makers, the United Garment Workers and the Uphol- 
 sterers, allow an employer the use of the label if he buys the output of a 
 non-union factory or shop. 
 
12 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Occasionally a strong union, even though it does not have a label, 
 will object if a union employer subcontracts to non-union shops. A case 
 of this kind occurred in the Glass Bottle Blowers in 1903. At that time 
 the Cumberland Glass Manufacturing Company, a union plant, sublet 
 part of its work to non-union factories. Its action was immediately 
 considered by the executive board of the Blowers. President Hayes 
 declared that the company could not be "too severely censured," and other 
 members of the executive board favored the calling of a strike and the 
 adoption of other "radical measures." A majority of the board, however, 
 thought it best not to force the issue, but soon afterwards the conference 
 committee of the union informed the representatives of the Green Glass 
 Bottle and Vial Manufacturers that the time was coming when union men 
 would not work in a factory which purchased the product of non-unionists. 
 
 The unions have extended the closed shop in another way. Many 
 unions require an employer who hires union men in one shop to hire 
 unionists in other shops in the same trade of which he is the proprietor. 
 
 Refusal to Complete Work 
 
 The unions in the building trades sometimes refuse to complete jobs 
 that have been begun by non-unionists. Thus the executive board of the 
 Bridge and Structural Iron workers have decided that union members 
 must not rivet material raised by "scabs" or place corrugated sheeting on 
 structures erected by "unfair" firms. Union bridgemen are not allowed 
 to rivet material that has been put in place by "scabs," but they may make 
 repairs on "unfairly" built structures. In the "working rules" for 1903- 
 I9O5> agreed to by the Contracting Sewer Builders' Association of Cook 
 County, Illinois, and by Local Union No. 21, of the Bricklayers and 
 Masons, it was provided that union bricklayers were not to build "inverts, 
 man-holes or catch basins" on a sewer which had been constructed by 
 non-union labor. 
 
 In at least one case a local union of the Painters forbade its members 
 to paint walls that had formerly been painted by non-unionists. While 
 the national union of the Painters and of other building trades unions 
 do all in their power to assist in making jobs union "from beginning to 
 end," they do not approve of this policy, since its adoption would deprive 
 union members of employment. In very few cases can a property owner 
 or a contractor be forced to tear a building down and rebuild it in order 
 to be in a position to hire union painters. Consequently most of the 
 unions in the building trades consider that it is usually the wisest policy 
 to finish an "unfair" building. Here again, expediency is the key-note of 
 'union policy. 
 
 Will Not Handle Open Shop Material 
 
 The application of the closed shop rule has been extended in still 
 another direction by the refusal of certain unions to handle non-union 
 material. The unions which are chiefly concerned with non-union materials 
 are those which have jurisdiction over establishments in which material 
 is manufactured as well as over the shops in which this material is put 
 into place or finished. The Amalgamated Carpenters, the United Brother- 
 hood of Carpenters, and the Sheet Metal Workers, for example, include 
 
DEFINITIONS AND INTRODUCTION 13 
 
 "inside men" or shop workers and "outside men" or structural building 
 workers within their jurisdictions. The Sheet Metal Workers have 
 advised their local unions to adopt by-laws forbidding the erection by 
 union members of non-union metal work. The locals have frequently 
 refused to erect non-union made pipe elbows, skylights, metal ceilings 
 and so on. The Amalgamated Carpenters impose a maximum fine of 
 fourteen dollars on a member for "fixing, finishing or using work which 
 has been made under unfair conditions, either in the United Kingdom or 
 abroad or contrary to the recognized rules of the district in which it has 
 been prepared." In the United States this rule has not been strictly 
 enforced. 
 
 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters has been more active against 
 non-union material than either the Sheet Metal Workers or the Amal- 
 gamated Carpenters. In the early years of its history there was much 
 agitation against the use of "trim" and other mill work manufactured in 
 towns and cities where the rates of wages were low. Since 1887 there 
 has been increasing agitation against the use of all non-union millwork. 
 In the year mentioned the New York City carpenters were urged not to 
 "touch a piece" of the product of a Poughkeepsie mill owner who had 
 persisted in running a non-union shop. By 1897 the situation in New York 
 had become critical. Mill owners in that city who ran union shops were 
 required to pay such comparatively high wages that they could not suc- 
 cessfully compete with non-union mills outside the city. Consequently, 
 in order to save the New York mills to the union the local unions of the 
 Carpenters decided not to put up any non-union "trim" or to work on a 
 job where it was used. Many strikes were called. The movement against 
 outside non-union trim finally assumed such importance that the executive 
 board of the International union gave financial assistance to the New 
 York district council. As a result of this movement the Carpenters 
 claim that many mills in the small towns about New York were unionized. 
 
 In many other localities similar measures have been taken by local 
 unions and district councils of the Carpenters. More and more the 
 officers of the union have come to believe "that the carpenter in order to 
 hold what rightfully belongs to him, must control the manufacture of 
 the material" which he erects. In 1904 the constitution of the national 
 union was amended so as to provide that local organizations must pro- 
 mote the use of "trim and shop-made carpenter work" with the union 
 label. The chief value of the label to the Carpenters at the present time 
 is that it affords a convenient and sure method for union carpenters at 
 work on a building to determine whether "fair" material is being used. 
 
 The Joint Closed Shop 
 
 It has been noted in the chapter on the simple closed shop that when 
 a national union has jurisdiction over two or more branches or trades 
 organized into separate local unions, it is usual to require local unions of 
 one trade to assist local unions in the other trade to establish the closed 
 shop. Very often, however, combinations have been formed among 
 national unions and among local unions of different national unions for 
 the purpose of securing mutual discrimination against non-union men. 
 The group of shops thus covered in any particular case may be fittingly 
 
14 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 called, in the aggregate, a "joint closed shop." The joint closed shop is 
 distinguished from the "extended closed shop" by the fact that the 
 cooperation against the employment of non-union men is among national 
 unions or among the branches of different national unions. The joint 
 closed shop has been principally employed in certain well-defined groups 
 of allied trades. These will be considered in the order of their importance. 
 
 The building trades. In strong trade-union centers it has been 
 increasingly difficult in recent years to get a union man of one trade to 
 work with a non-unionist of any other trade on structural building work. 
 In many cases discrimination against non-unionists has been extended 
 even to unskilled building laborers. It has been comparatively easy to 
 secure the cooperation of the unions in the building trades in establishing 
 the joint closed shop because their members ordinarily work in intimate 
 association with each other. Although jurisdictional disputes have hin- 
 dered the development of amicable relations, there has been, on the whole, 
 a greater sense of unity and a stronger spirit of fellowship among the 
 building trades unions than among any other group of unions. 
 
 Another factor in the success of the joint closed shop in the building 
 trades has been that six or seven unions of approximately uniform 
 strength and influence include the great mass of the workmen. These 
 unions are the more willing to assist each other inasmuch as each of 
 them incurs practically the same risks and secures practically equal 
 benefits by joint action. The smaller unions have also usually been 
 willing to assist to the extent of their power in any joint movement, but 
 the greatest factor in the success of the joint closed shop among these 
 unions has been the peculiar effectiveness of the sympathetic strike in 
 the building trades. Since a building must be erected on a certain spot 
 and within a fixed time, a strike even of a single union is a serious mat- 
 ter; but if a group of unions strike simultaneously to redress the grievance 
 of one, the employer is placed at an enormously increased disadvantage. 
 
 Use of Compulsion 
 
 The power of the joint closed shop has been frequently used to enforce 
 the extended closed shop. The National Building Trades Council, through 
 its general secretary-treasurer, on more than one occasion has expressed 
 itself as opposed to allowing "fair" employers to sublet work to non- 
 union firms. An agreement between a local council and employers allow- 
 ing non-union subcontracting was declared to be "a peculiar guarantee," 
 permissible only in lockouts "as a policy to keep the council and unions 
 intact." It was also one of the aims of the National Building Trades 
 Council to compel an employer to be "fair" to the affiliated unions in all 
 parts of the country. At the time of its organization in 1897 many 
 building contractors no longer confined themselves to local operations 
 but undertook work in many different sections. If one council became 
 involved in a dispute with a contractor while he was carrying on work 
 under the jurisdiction of another council, it was the policy of the national 
 organization where practicable to force the contractor to grant union 
 conditions in the former locality as the price of employing union men in 
 the latter. 
 
DEFINITIONS AND INTRODUCTION 15 
 
 Closed Shop History 
 
 (From "History of Labor in the United States," by John 
 R. Commons and associates. Volume I, pages 130-132. The 
 foot notes are not included. Early history of the closed shop.) 
 
 Just as the strike was the direct means of enforcing demands upon 
 the employers, so the closed shop, in addition to being a corollary of the 
 strike, was also the indirect method of enforcing and maintaining 
 demands. The term, "closed shop," is, of course, quite recent in origin, 
 but aptly describes the policy adopted by the cordwainers of Philadelphia 
 when they effected their first permanent organization of 1794, as well as 
 by the other cordwainer societies. It consisted partly in compelling the 
 employer to retain none but society men in his shop and partly in pre- 
 venting non-society men from getting employment. 
 
 The Philadelphia, New York, and Pittsburgh cordwainers required 
 outsiders to join them as soon as they came to town, and the New York 
 cordwainers imposed a heavy fine for failure to do so. The Pittsburgh 
 society even went so far as to exercise jurisdiction over non-members, 
 requiring them to appear at meetings and defend themselves against 
 charges, remitting a fine only on condition that the offender promise to 
 join the society. Scabs were hounded and heavily punished. One manu- 
 facturer in Philadelphia, who refused to discharge a scab, held out for 
 over a year and a half, but was finally forced to move his business to 
 another city. Other employers were compelled to pay the fines of the 
 scabs or to instruct the scabs to do so themselves under pain of discharge. 
 
 It was as a means of disciplining the scab that the boycott was first 
 thought of. Here again the shoemakers were the pioneers. The Phila- 
 delphia cordwainers refused to eat at the same boarding ho'use where non- 
 union men boarded. This social ostracism proved effective. Boycotting 
 of commodities was unknown. 
 
 The strategic hold of the shoemakers, owing to scarcity of men in 
 their trade, is illustrated by the following complaint of a master at the 
 Pittsburgh conspiracy trial: "Some of the journeymen were training out 
 of town, and I was afraid if I did not give the wages I would not have a 
 stock of work to go down the river." Another, who employed eleven 
 journeymen, did no business at all during the turn-out in 1815, while a 
 third, who ordinarily hired from fourteen to twenty-two journeymen, 
 had only three during the strike. 
 
 While the cordwainers generally took the aggressive, demanding out- 
 right from the masters an absolute closed shop, the printers, less strongly 
 organized, groped their way cautiously and meekly, made demands, but 
 did not press for their enforcement. Their attitude, however, was stated 
 by the New York printers in 1809 as follows: "In all classes of society, 
 experience has proved that there have been men who, laying aside those 
 principles of honor and good faith which ought to govern their conduct 
 towards their brethren, and for a mere gratification of private interest, 
 have set aside the obligations they were under, by violating the ordinance 
 which they have pledged themselves to maintain. It is for the interest 
 of the profession that such persons * * * ' should be discountenanced 
 
16 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 The printers denounced scabs but did little else. The cordwainers 
 not only denounced them but made their exclusion from employment 
 the whip of union discipline. "The scab law," said one of their wit- 
 nesses in Philadelphia, "was a stimulus to the members to support what 
 they undertook." 
 
 The theory of the closed shop was propounded by counsel for the 
 New York cordwainers in defending them against conspiracy charges. 
 He explained their refusal to work with those who violated "the rules 
 and ordinances" of the union as follows : "If the majority of the work- 
 men were content with their wages, the majority would be harmless; 
 but if an individual will seek to better himself at the expense of his 
 fellows, when they are suffering privation to obtain terms, it is not 
 hard that they Cleave him to his employers; and the most inoffensive man- 
 ner in which they can show their displeasure is by shaking the dust off 
 their feet, and leaving the shop where he is engaged." He contended 
 "that in times of public division no man should be neutral," which "tended 
 to obviate the evils of deception and dissimulation. It prevented matters 
 from being carried to extremity, and it gave each party a clear knowledge 
 of its own strength, and furnished a measure by which the success of 
 the struggle might be foreseen, and useless contest avoided." 
 
 Extent of Open Shop Movement 
 
 (From an address of President William H. Barr to the 
 National Founders Association, November 17, 1920.) 
 
 A change has been brought about by the determination of men to 
 free themselves from the unsound and unnatural control so imposed upon 
 them. Today, that determination is manifest in the open shop move- 
 ment. Its progress is a matter of economy to those who began it; 
 of consolation to those engaged in industry; and a stimulant to the 
 patriotism of every one. A partial, but careful survey of irresistible 
 activities in behalf of the open shop shows that 540 organizations in 247 
 cities, of forty-four states, are engaged in promoting this American 
 principle in the employment relations. A total of twenty-three national 
 industrial associations are included in these agencies. In addition, 1,665 
 local Chambers of Commerce, following the splendid example of the 
 United States Chamber of Commerce, are also pledged to the principle 
 of the open shop. 
 
LABOR ATTITUDE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 17 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Labor Attitude of the National Association of 
 
 Manufacturers / ' ^ * 
 
 Manufacturers 
 
 Declaration of Labor Principles of the National Association of 
 Manufacturers of the United States of America 
 
 Asiatic 
 
 Fair dealing is the fundamental and basic principle on which ' 
 "elations between employers and employes should rest. 
 
 2. The National Association of Manufacturers is not opposed to * 
 organizations of labor as such, but it is unalterably opposed to boycotts, 
 black-lists and other illegal acts of interference with the personal liberty 
 of employer or employe. 
 
 ^ 3- No persons shall be refused employment or in any way discrim- 
 mated against on account of membership or non-membership in any labor' 
 organization, and there should be no discriminating against or inter-* 
 ference with any employe who is not a member of a labor organization, 
 by members of such organization. 
 
 4. With due regard to contracts, it is the right of the employe to* 
 leave his employment whenever he sees fit, and it is the right of the* 
 employer to discharge any employe when he sees fit. 
 
 W 5- Employers must be free to .employ their work people at wages* 
 nrutually satisfactory, without interference or dictation on the part of* 
 individuals or organizations not directly parties to such contracts. 
 :sj^6. Employers must be unmolested and unhampered in the manage-* 
 ment of their business, in determining the amount and quality of their* 
 product, and in the use of any methods or systems of pay which are just* 
 and equitable. 
 
 -J{" 7. In the interest of employes and employers of the country, no 
 limitation should be placed upon the opportunities of any person to learn . 
 any trade to which he or she may be adapted. 
 
 8. The National Association of Manufacturers disapproves abso-* 
 lutely of strikes and lockouts, and favors an equitable adjustment of all' 
 differences between employers and employes, by any amicable method that* 
 will preserve the rights of both parties. 
 
 jfc- Employes have the right to contract for thair services in a col-* 
 lective capacity, but any contract that contains a stipulation that employ- 
 ment should be denied to men not parties to the contract is an invasion 
 of the constitutional rights of the American workman, is against public, 
 policy and is in violation of jthe conspiracy laws. This Assptiat 
 declares its unalterable antagonism to- the closed shop /and iruSist^/Vhat * 
 the doors of no industry be/ / closed y against American workmen/ clause of 
 their membership or non/membeFhip in Any labor ofganizatic 
 
 10. The xNationar Association of Manufacturers pledges itself to* 
 oppose any and all legislation not in accord with the foregoing declar- * 
 ation. 
 
i8 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 What the Declaration Means 
 
 (The following commentaries on those sections of the above 
 declarations which bear on the Open Shop, were made by Presi- 
 dent Stephen C. Mason in an article appearing in the Annals of 
 the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March, 
 1919.) 
 
 (2) The National Association of Manufacturers is not 
 opposed to organizations of labor as such, but it is unalterably 
 opposed to boycotts, blacklists and other illegal acts of inter- 
 ference with the personal liberty of employer or employe. 
 From its organization this Association has never denied nor con- 
 demned the right to existence of labor unions. It has, however, insist- 
 ently demanded that labor organizations be founded upon an enlightened 
 public consciousness, and their operations based upon legitimate prin- 
 ciples, and that they recognize the right of all workers to engage for 
 their services under such lawful conditions as may seem best to them. 
 Such organizations should establish responsibility for their contracts. 
 Power without responsibility always leads to abuse. There can be little 
 room for doubt that the general disuse into which such labor union tactics 
 as boycotts and black-lists have happily fallen in recent years has proved 
 not only their illegal nature (as numerous court decisions proclaim) but 
 the emphatic disfavor of the general public regarding such practices. 
 
 "Cruel," "cowardly," "immoral" and "anti-social," are some of the 
 judicial characterizations of the un-American labor union weapon, the 
 boycott. The pernicious nature of both this practice and that of labor 
 union black-lists is that they are serious invasions of the rights and 
 personal liberties not only of the employer and employe, parties to a 
 dispute, but inflict injury on third persons who are not interested parties 
 in the controversy. We equally condemn any such practices on the part 
 of employers. Against such oppressive illegal acts the Association has 
 stood and always will stand firm. 
 
 (3) No person should be refused employment or in any way 
 discriminated against on account of membership or non-member- 
 ship in any labor organization, and there should be no discrim- 
 inating against or interference with any employe who is not a 
 member of a labor organization by members of such organizations. 
 This declaration embraces the fundamental principle that very 
 
 person who labors must have the freedom to engage _for__ and deliver his 
 of her services without interference; conversely, every employer of labor 
 must have the freedom to hire the class, grade, quantity and quality of_ 
 labor best suited to his needs. This is the definition of the important 
 industrial principle of the "Open Shop." It is a principle that should 
 neither be denied nor compromised in the interest of either employers 
 or employes, and is a sound doctrine interwoven with certain inherent, 
 individual, human rights. An analysis of this tenet shows it to be neither 
 offensive nor destructive. On the contrary it is a safeguard of a sacred 
 individual human right whether it is industrial in application and exer- 
 cise, or otherwise. It is a concept upon which our Constitution and 
 political institutions are based. 
 
LABOR ATTITUDE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 19 
 
 (7) In the interest of employes and employers of the coun- 
 try no limitation should be placed upon the opportunities of any 
 person to learn any trade to which he or she may be adapted. 
 
 Unrestricted opportunity for industrial education of the youth of 
 the land so that there may be produced efficient industrial workers, is 
 the underlying thought involved in this statement. It implies a complete 
 rejection of the erroneous and harmful principle of trade unions by 
 which limitations are placed upon the number of apprentices permitted 
 to be employed in the skilled trades. In recent years there has been a 
 widespread awakening of public interest in the subject of vocational 
 training. Municipal, state and even the federal government, realizing 
 the dire necessity for the more general systematic industrial training of 
 our youth, have undertaken extensive plans in this direction. For more 
 than twenty years the employers of the country embraced in the ranks of 
 the Association have not only recognized the urgency of this problem, but 
 have consistently made every possible effort to increase the opportunities 
 of any person to learn any trade to which he or she may be adapted. 
 The widespread recognition of this question during recent years is an 
 indication of the soundness of the position taken by the Association upon 
 this question. 
 
 (9) Employes have the right to contract for their services 
 in a collective capacity, but any contract that contains a stipula- 
 tion that employment should be denied to men not parties to the 
 contract, is an invasion of the constitutional rights of the Ameri- 
 can workman, and is against public policy and in violation of the 
 conspiracy law. This Association declares its unalterable antag- 
 onism to the closed shop, and insists that the doors of no indus- 
 try be closed against American workmen because of their mem- 
 bership or non-membership in any labor organization. 
 
 The evident purpose of such a declaration as this is the affirmation 
 of the sacred and unassailable constitutional right of every worker and 
 of every person to engage for his labor in a free and unrestricted 
 market. Despite the efforts of many to garble and destroy this vital 
 industrial truth, it is unquestionable that the prosperity of this country 
 depends upon strict adherence to this fundamental rule of liberty and 
 justice. The employers of America regard this principle as something 
 that cannot, in the interests of free institutions, be abridged by legis- 
 lation. In other words, we insist that no man or group of men whether 
 employers or employes, has any right to place a brand upon any human 
 being and say that those so branded, regardless of merit, are emptied to 
 special privileges, and in the same breath to say that those who ae not so 
 branded and not willing to be so branded must be limited in or prevented 
 from the full exercise of their constitutional rights. 
 
 It may be timely to record the fact that the question of collective, 
 shop bargaining, or cooperative representation already has had earnest 
 consideration by a large number of manufacturers throughout the coun- 
 try, and practical and successful plans embodying such purposes are 
 already in 'operation in many important establishments. In the adoption 
 
20 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 of these industrial representation plans no question is raised regarding 
 the membership of workers in outside organizations. 
 
 These plans present a method by which employes can deal collectively, 
 through representatives selected or elected by them, with their employers 
 in relation to all questions and conditions of employment. They will 
 furnish a new channel of communication between wage-earners and 
 wage-payers whereby they may better be able to avoid misunderstandings 
 and mutually agree upon satisfactory adjustments of wages, working 
 conditions, etc., and promote and establish such friendly relationships 
 and cooperative spirit as will be beneficial and to the best interests of 
 both. Such activities are clearly within the scope of this principle of 
 our organization. 
 
 Scope of the National Association of Manufacturers 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. James A. Emery, General Counsel 
 of the National Association of Manufacturers, before the Indus- 
 trial Relations Commission, April 8, 1914.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : What is the general purpose of the National Asso- 
 ciation of Manufacturers? 
 
 MR. EMERY: The National Association of Manufacturers was organ- 
 ized in 1895 primarily for the promotion especially of foreign trade, and 
 as it grew in years it developed a wider range of interest for the manu- 
 facturer, and it deals today with practically every phase of social and 
 industrial activity in which the manufacturer as such is interested. 
 
 It maintains its headquarters in New York and carries on an exten- 
 sive foreign department. Those who might have more interest will find 
 a very interesting account of it in the Saturday Evening Post of two 
 weeks ago by Mr. Forest Crissey, who is writing a series of articles on 
 trade organizations, and in that he speaks of this as the largest trade 
 organization in the. world, and he gives a most interesting account of 
 trade organizations. 
 
 The National Association of Manufacturers provides for the ship- 
 ment of freight of every kind for its members. It has a department of 
 translations, in which the foreign correspondence of manufacturers can 
 be carried on in some thirty languages, letters being received and trans- 
 lated and others written. It has some 21,000 correspondents in all the 
 chief commercial centers of the world, who keep it informed as to trade 
 matters for the benefit of its members. It has a foreign collection bureau 
 and a domestic collection bureau, and a shipping and transportation 
 bureau. It has an extensive system of inspection for its factories. There 
 is attached to it as a subsidiary organization a mutual fire insurance 
 company, for the benefit of its members, and of course it informs its 
 members as fully as it can on all questions of interest to the manu- 
 facturers. For instance, all questions which would develop in relation 
 to the conditions under which manufacturers do business in every 
 State in the Union, as well as in every foreign country. 
 
 The legal department attends to all the questions that necessarily 
 arise under those circumstances. It keeps track of all legislation of 
 
LABOR ATTITUDE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 21 
 
 the States and in the National Legislature, of interest to manufacturers. 
 It informs them fully as to their terms and meaning. It represents 
 them in opposition to such legislation as they oppose, and in the pro- 
 motion of such legislation as they express formal interest in. There is 
 practically no matter that would inform a manufacturer concerning 
 conditions in the trade at home or abroad, and practically no questions 
 of interest to the manufacturer of which it does not undertake to keep 
 abreast. 
 
 In the last five years it has carried on a very extensive movement 
 for accident prevention and workmen's compensation. It was the first 
 large organization in this country to take up that work, and it made 
 extensive foreign investigations as to the practical operation of work- 
 men's compensation laws abroad and methods of accident prevention, 
 and from this experience it has undertaken to apply the fruits in this 
 country, subject to the modifications that exist in our differing forms of 
 work. We have a standing committee in charge of that work, and a 
 continuous inspection is going on of the factories of all our members 
 with respect to increasing the facilities for the prevention of accident, 
 and the inculcation of those habits which most readily and powerfully 
 lead to accident prevention. 
 
 In addition to that, there is a very wide range of educational work 
 carried on in connection with that and other subjects. Practically every 
 shop of the members of the national association has been visited in the 
 last four years by lecturers, who, through moving pictures and a form of 
 address, have undertaken to enlist the cooperation of both employers and 
 employes in the movement for accident prevention and vocational edu- 
 cation. We have spent very large sums of money in that work and have 
 a very large staff carrying it on, and the films which have been made 
 for the purpose of strikingly depicting these efforts and principles to 
 the eye have not only been used among the employes or members of the 
 Association, but they have been generally at the service of public bodies 
 of any kind or character in parts of the country that were interested in 
 the subject, and those lectures on those subjects have been carried on 
 before commercial and manufacturers' associations in every part of 
 the country. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : I presume that among these activities you mention 
 the relation of employer and employe have received the attention of the 
 National Association of Manufacturers? 
 
 MR. EMERY: Very decided attention in the last ten years, notably. 
 Much attention was not paid to that at first, but it became more and 
 more a subject of discussion in conventions and meetings, and from 1903 
 or 1904 it may be said to have been one of the dominant questions in 
 the life of the National Association and the Association has expressed 
 itself very vigorously with regard to the principles which it believes 
 ought to underlie the relations of employer and employe, and has under- 
 taken by every legitimate means to defend those principles against attack. 
 
 I do not wish to be misunderstood. I mean by that there is no oppo- 
 sition, so far as I know, among members of the National Association 
 of Manufacturers, to the principle of collective bargaining. There are 
 
22 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 many members of the Association who deal with their employes col- 
 lectively, and the Association has never at any time interfered with the 
 action of its members in that regard, but it has opposed the making of 
 an exclusive collective bargain which meant the establishment of what 
 we term a closed shop. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: But otherwise this section 5 is not to be under- 
 stood or read as preventing collective bargaining? 
 
 ME. EMERY: Not as expressing an opinion in opposition to it; 
 no, sir. 
 
 Ask Equality Before the Law for Employers and Workers 
 
 (From statements of James A. Emery, general counsel, 
 National Association of Manufacturers, before the Senate Com- 
 mittee on Interstate Commerce, Sixty-second Congress.) 
 
 I, and all I represent, are firm believers in the right of men to 
 organize for the protection of their hours, labor and working conditions. 
 Many thousands of men employed by my clients are members of labor 
 organizations of all kinds, and we do not and never have questioned 
 their right to form unions and by legitimate action enforce their demands. 
 We ask for no other restrictions for them than the same law places on 
 all citizens. We insist that any combination of workmen or employers 
 that deliberately undertakes to compel another man to engage in inter- 
 state commerce in accordance with its will or not at all, or that under- 
 takes to ruin the trade and persecute the trader who differs from its 
 economic judgment and will not bow to its economic demands, always 
 has been, and in a free country, always must be, condemned by law, 
 whether it assumes corporate or voluntary form. That principle always 
 has been recognized in applying the Sherman Act to combinations of 
 capital or employers, as witness the case of M,ontague vs. Lowry (193 
 U. S.), which was a voluntary combination of tile dealers; or the case of 
 Coal Dealers' Association (85 Fed. 252) which was condemned and dis- 
 solved by the Circuit Court of the United States in California. These 
 and other voluntary associations, without capital stock, and not con- 
 ducted for profit, in the same sense as a labor organization, have offended 
 the Sherman Act. If we do not continue to restrain or punish combi- 
 nations of workmen when they undertake to destroy and oppress traders 
 or other workmen engaged in interstate commerce, it will not for equal 
 reasons of principle be possible to protect the same trader against the 
 acts of a voluntary association of employers, who undertake to compel 
 him to do business in accordance with their will and upon their terms, 
 or not at all, as did the combinations of tile dealers and coal dealers. 
 
 No Suppression or Discrimination 
 
 (The following is part of a statement by Mr. J. Philip Bird 
 in the New York Herald of January 16, 1921. It is a discussion 
 of the present open -shop movement.) 
 
 The country-wide movement for the open shop, which is attracting 
 
LABOR ATTITUDE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 23 
 
 attention as one of the most remarkable phenomena in American indus- 
 trial history, is entirely spontaneous, with no central control or authority 
 of any kind, so it was asserted yesterday by J. Philip Bird, general 
 manager of the National Association of Manufacturers. 
 
 "More than 500 organizations in 250 cities have now indorsed the 
 plan," said Mr. Bird, "and prominent manufacturers declare they could 
 not stern the tide if they wished." 
 
 According to the resolution first adopted by the National Association 
 of Manufacturers in 1903, the open shop is one in which "no person 
 should be refused employment or in any way discriminated against on 
 account of membership or non-membership in any labor organization." 
 The Association also declared "it is unalterably opposed to boycotts." 
 
 "The declarations mean exactly what they say," Mr. Bird declared 
 yesterday. "It was stated that 'employes have the right to contract for 
 their services in a collective capacity,' but that no collective agreement 
 shall forbid employment to those who, for any reason, refuse to join a 
 labor organization. 
 
 * "There is no desire in this day and age of organization to suppress 
 and eliminate organizations of employes. The great mass of union 
 workers are honest God-fearing and liberty-loving Americans. But, 
 according to William Z. Foster of steel strike fame, the unions are con- 
 trolled by one per cent, of their total membership. It is the actions and 
 policies of tiffs one per cent, to which the employers object/'' 
 
 "The closed shoppers frequently seize upon isolated instances, some 
 large, but most small, of open shop advocates who abuse the principle. 
 It will be found in most of the cases where employers discriminate 
 against union men that such discrimination is the result of policies and 
 actions of the unions with which they would have to deal. For instance, 
 certain employers refuse absolutely to deal with the Structural Iron 
 Workers, thirty-eight of whose leaders were sentenced to prison a few 
 years ago for destroying the property of employers. Twenty-one of 
 these men were afterward elected to local and national office in the union, 
 which still belongs to the American Federation of Labor. 
 
 "Then, again, many employers are unable in any case to employ 
 union men because of union rules forbidding their working alongside 
 independent workers. It is a fundamental policy of closed shop union 
 rules to refuse to arbitrate the question of the closed shop. The general 
 policy of the closed shop is to single out an individual case for 
 attack, hoping the public will forget the principles involved and will fail 
 to consider the thousands upon thousands of establishments all over 
 the country willing and anxious to operate, where it is possible, under 
 real open shop conditions." 
 
24 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Structure and Finances of Labor Unions 
 
 The labor situation can never be properly understood without 
 a correct knowledge of the nature of the organizations actively 
 supporting the closed shop. We should, moreover, know, or at 
 least have ready for reference, the internal structure of these 
 bodies. 
 
 The Federation of Labor 
 
 (From an article explaining the American Federation of 
 Labor appearing in the American Labor Year Book, 1917-1918, 
 published by the Rand School, a Socialist propaganda organiza- 
 tion. With certain figures corrected by later statistics from 
 official sources.) 
 
 The character of the American Federation of Labor, which was 
 organized in 1881, though not named "A. F. of L." until five years 
 afterwards, was influenced to no small extent by the character of its 
 predecessor the Knights of Labor. This organization, which reached 
 its zenith in 1885 came to grief largely because of its combining in the 
 local assemblies laborers of all varieties and many employers and non- 
 wage-earners; its dual organizations of labor assemblies and trade assem- 
 blies ; its over-centralization ; its frequent participation in sympathetic 
 strikes and its peculiar ventures. 
 
 The A. F. of L. is in reality a federation. Local unions are generally 
 affiliated with it through the nationals. It now contains no national 
 and international unions, 46 state federations, 926 city central bodies, 
 1,286 local trade and federal labor unions, 36,741 local unions, 5 depart- 
 ments and 682 local department councils. Its membership is reported as 
 4,078,740. 
 
 The real factors in the conduct of the Federation are the conventions 
 called annually on the second Monday of November between election and 
 the opening of Congress. National and international organizations are 
 represented therein by one delegate for approximately every 4,000 members. 
 
 The officers of the Federation are a president, eight vice-presidents, 
 a secretary and a treasurer, each elected the last day of the convention. 
 All elected officers must be members of unions connected with the Federa- 
 tion. The responsible administrative work rests with the Executive Coun- 
 cil, composed of the eleven officers. The council watches legislative 
 measures, initiates legislation, schedules speakers and performs many 
 necessary administrative tasks. 
 
 National and international unions must pay to the Federation two- 
 thirds of one cent per member per month ; local trade unions and federal 
 trade unions, ten cents, five cents of which must be set aside for strikes, 
 etc. State and Central bodies pay $10 per year. All national unions 
 are supposed to instruct their locals to join the Central labor bodies 
 and state organizations in their vicinities. Seven wage workers of 
 good character favorable to trade unionism, whose trade is not organized 
 
STRUCTURE AND FINANCES OF LABOR UNIONS 25 
 
 and who are not members of any body affiliated with the Federation, may 
 form a local body to be known as a "Federal Labor Union." 
 
 The State Federations look after legislation in their respective states 
 and urge more effective organization among the workers. The city 
 councils meeting generally once a week and composed of representatives 
 from the various locals in their vicinity look after the general organized 
 labor interests of their respective communities. 
 
 The Federation also possesses five departments whose objects it is 
 to get various unions to cooperate for mutual advantage the Union 
 Label, the Building Trades, the Metal Trades, the Railway Employes and 
 the Mining Departments. Each department after its establishment, sup- 
 ports itself and manages its own affairs, and has its representatives 
 at the meetings of the Executive Council. 
 
 The Building Trades Department, organized in 1908 though an 
 evolution from a similar organization formed in 1903 contains most of 
 the trades engaged in building and the Metal Trades those in the metal 
 industries. The Mining Department contains the United Mine Workers, 
 Western Federation of Miners, Brotherhood of Steam Shovel and Dredge- 
 men, Iron, Steel and Tin Workers and the Machinists. 
 
 Although most of the unions connected with the Federation are 
 trade organizations, there are a few individual unions including the 
 United Mine Workers, the Brewery Workers and there is ever more 
 discussion regarding industrial unionism in the ranks of organized 
 labor. 
 
 A Statement 
 
 (From "The Union Shop and its Antithesis," by the President 
 of the American Federation of Labor, page 8. Compare this very 
 general statement with the succeeding views, which show its 
 inaccuracies.) 
 
 Any wage worker can join a trade union. All are open, wide open 
 to all wage-workers qualified at the occupation organized. They pay 
 an entrance fee barely sufficient to equalize the payments of unions' 
 benevolent benefits and current cost of administration. No union ever 
 asks a non-unionist to pay for the slightest percentage of the damage 
 he has done as a disruptionist. It is literally and positively true, without 
 evasion or equivocation, that trade unions, and consequently union shops, 
 are open for all wage-workers whom any employer would possibly con- 
 template as employes who would be kept regularly and permanently 
 in his employ. 
 
 The Facts 
 
 (From "Unemployment and American Trade Unions," by 
 Dr. D. P. Smelser. Published by Johns Hopkins University, 
 1919. Pages 35 and 36.) 
 
 In view of the existence of such union theories, it is not surprising 
 that a great number of unions have placed restrictions upon the admission 
 of workmen to their organizations. The editor of the Bridge and 
 
26 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Structural Iron Workers' Journal has stated the common union view as 
 follows : 
 
 "As a general proposition with us we appear to think that a new 
 applicant means another person to apply for the various jobs." 
 
 Not all of the unions have adopted the policy of limiting their 
 membership; many are willing to receive as members practically all who 
 are employed at the trade. But, where a local union has the field 
 sufficiently organized to successfully deal with the employers, very little 
 effort is made to secure additional members. In some of the large cities 
 it is very difficult to obtain admission to a building-trades union. In such 
 cases it is felt that workmen have the local situation so well in hand 
 that the presence of even a considerable number of unorganized work- 
 men can have little influence in their dealings with the employers. 
 
 A few local unions in various trades make their admission fees high 
 as a barrier to deter the unorganized from joining. Initiation fees of 
 $50.00, $75.00 and even $100.00 are found in a few highly organized unions, 
 and this amount must be paid before the workmen are given their work- 
 ing cards. Another method of keeping the unorganized out of the union 
 is to make the conditions of the examination such that it is very difficult 
 for ordinary workmen to pass it. The New York local union of Steam 
 Fitters limits its membership by this method. The requirements of the 
 examination are said to be of such a nature that a majority of the members 
 of the union could not pass it. Other unions have gone further and 
 have absolutely refused to consider applications., While this is a 
 policy of only two or three national unions, it is practiced in a great number 
 of local unions of various trades. These local unions have a sufficient 
 number of members to maintain relations with the employers and are 
 extremely reluctant to receive any new members, even upon application. 
 A still greater number of local unions do not make any serious efforts 
 to organize their trade. Thus, a business agent informed the writer 
 that he made no effort to secure new members and, further, that he 
 attempted to persuade applicants not to join the union unless work was 
 very plentiful. 
 
 The union apprenticeship policies are dominated by the same ideas. 
 The unions seek to perpetuate the custom of apprenticeship with its 
 accompanying rules, primarily, in order that the supply of labor may be 
 regulated and, secondarily, that capable workmen may be produced. 
 Although there is no desire to minimize the purpose of the unions to 
 produce efficient workmen by the system of apprenticeship, it is obvious 
 that this is subordinate to the desire to restrict the number working 
 at the trade. 
 
 Initiation Fees in Unions 
 
 (From .''Admissions to American Trade Unions," by Dr. F. 
 E. Wolfe, Colby College. Published by Johns Hopkins University, 
 1912. Read this and true preceding statement and compare them 
 with the preceding utterances of the President of the American 
 Federation of Labor.) 
 
 An incidental requisite for admission into any union is the payment 
 of an initiation fee. Usually the amount is small, and represents only a 
 
STRUCTURE AND FINANCES OF LABOR UNIONS 27 
 
 nominal charge for the privilege of membership. But the power to fix 
 a charge may be abused and become prohibitory to prospective mem- 
 bers. Strong local unions have at times sought to exclude workmen by 
 charging a high admission fee in order to monopolize employment for 
 their members. A few national unions have also used high fees appar- 
 ently for exclusive purposes. Thus the national board of directors of the 
 United Hatters have fixed the fees from individual applicants at sums 
 varying from $26 to $100. In 1908 the Print Cutters agreed to admit two 
 men into the association upon payment by each of an initiation fee of 
 $200. The determination of the initiation fees may have, therefore, an 
 important influence on admission policy. The majority of national unions 
 have not required the payment of high fees, but many of them have regu- 
 lated the amount of such fees which may be charged by the local unions. 
 
 The determination of fees varies in different unions; some, as for 
 example the Printers, leave the matter to local control. A second large 
 class, represented by the Carpenters' United Brotherhood, the Painters, 
 Decorators and Paperhangers, the Pattern Makers, the Elevator Con- 
 structors and the Plumbers fix only a minimum, thus interfering least with 
 local autonomy. In either of these classes the local unions may raise 
 the charge at their discretion. Thus, while the minimum for initiation into 
 the United Brotherhood of Carpenters is $5, the fee for new members 
 in the Baltimore district is $25. The Elevator Constructors require a 
 minimum of $25, and the Chicago and St. Louis local unions have imposed 
 fees of $50. The Musicians have a $5 minimum, but local unions on occa- 
 sion increase the charge to $75 and $100. In a few instances local unions 
 of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers impose charges of $200 and 
 $250. In case no restriction is placed on the amount of the initiation fee 
 and no appeal may be taken to the national union, a local union may thus 
 hedge itself in against outsiders. 
 
 Another group of unions, including the Cigar Makers, the Iron Mold- 
 ers, the Granite Cutters, the Stone Cutters, and the Bookbinders, have 
 prescribed a uniform fee for all localities. This method secures uniform- 
 ity, and restrains the use of increased fees by a local union, unless the 
 consent of the national authority is procured. Some unions, such as the 
 Bricklayers and Masons, the Bakery and Confectionery Workers, the 
 United Garment Workers and the Lake Seamen, fix a maximum as well 
 as a minimum, and thus secure approximate uniformity in the fees 
 charged by the local unions. 
 
 High special fees are defended on several grounds. In the first 
 place, they often partake of the nature of fines imposed on recalcitrant, 
 expelled and non-union workmen. Although national regulations forbid 
 these fees above a stated sum, an additional amount in the nature of fines 
 may be charged by the local "unions, and must be paid for admission. 
 The effect of this is merely to increase the fee. Many unions provide 
 by this means for increased fees from "anti-unionists" or "oppositionists." 
 Thus the Bricklayers and Masons permit the local unions to impose only 
 $10 as an initiation fee, but provide for the imposition of penalties rang- 
 ing from $25 to $1,000 upon either former members or non-unionists who 
 have worked against the union. The Marble Workers impose a special 
 
28 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 fee of $50 in addition to the regular fee upon non-members who knc 
 ingly work on unfair jobs. The Pattern Makers provide that the exe 
 tive committee of the local union may recommend such "cost of adir 
 siori as it deems justified by the facts when the record of a candid 
 shows persistent defiance of and antagonism of the League." 
 
 A universal condition of admission to any union is the payment 
 an initiation fee. Usually the amount is small, and is not sufficient to d 
 courage prospective members ; certain unions, however, demand higl 
 initiation fees of immigrants than of other applicants. High and in so 
 case prohibitive initiation fees have been for a number of years impoj 
 on this class of workmen by the Flint Glass Workers, the Table Kn 
 Grinders, the Pen and Pocket Knife Blade Grinders, the Window Gl: 
 Workers, the Stone Cutters, the Granite Cutters, the Wire Weavers, 1 
 Glass Bottle Blowers, the Lace Operatives, the Lithographers, the Pr 
 Cutters, the Brewery Workers, and the Sanitary Potters. It was pi 
 vided in 1887 by the Flint Glass Workers that "all foreigners be tax 
 one hundred dollars as an intiation fee;" in 1904 the charge was reduc 
 to $10. This amount is now the minimum special fee required of imr 
 grants. In 1892 the Window Glass Workers fixed a few for "foreignei 
 at $200, in 1895 at $500, and in 1904, at $300. But since 1907 the natioi 
 executive board has been empowered to determine the charge for ea 
 individual case. The Wire Weavers, since 1895, and the Glass Bot 
 Blowers, since 1903, have charged immigrant applicants $500. This 
 the highest regular fee imposed upon an applicant in any American tra 
 union. 
 
 National trade unions ordinarily prescribed a minimum initiation i 
 for all applicants, but they often reserve to local unions the right 
 increase the fee for special cases. In the port cities of the United Stat 
 the local unions in some trades have exercised this right by imposi 
 higher fees on immigrants. Local unions of the Musicians, the Plastere 
 and the Pattern Makers thus impose special fees in addition to the mil 
 mum fixed by the national union. 
 
 The imposition of a special admission charge in many instances m 
 have no other purpose than to secure payment for advantages and pri^ 
 leges which would otherwise be procured without adequate contribute 
 from the prospective member. But the excessive fees required by t 
 Glass Bottle Blowers, the Window Glass Workers, the Knife Grinders, t 
 Print Cutters, the Lace Operatives, and the Wire Weavers are acknov 
 edged to be for the purposes of exclusion. The five-hundred-dollar f 
 of the Wire Weavers is maintained as a prohibitive tariff to keep o 
 weavers from England and Scotland. The last foreign weavers we 
 admitted in 1906. The Glass Bottle Blowers have desired particularly 
 protect the trade against glass blowers from Sweden and Germany. > 
 immigrant applicants have been admitted for several years, and for thr 
 years none have applied.- In 1908, the Lace Operatives increased the f 
 for immigrants to discourage skilled workmen from migrating to th 
 country. Local unions of the Stone Cutters, the Granite Cutters ai 
 other trades openly seek protection against the competition of foreij 
 workmen by the use of special high fees. 
 
TRADE-UNION DEVELOPMENT IN BRIEF 29 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Trade Union Development in Brief 
 Forms of Organizations 
 
 (From an article by George E. Barnett, Professor of Eco- 
 nomics at Johns Hopkins University, in the Quarterly Journal of 
 Economics, May, 1913.) 
 
 Trade unionists in all industrial countries have developed a number 
 of distinct forms of grouping. At the present time, for example, Amer- 
 ican trade unionists are organized into local trade unions, national trade 
 unions, city federations, a national federation, local trades councils and 
 national trades councils. The same unionist may be included in all of 
 these six forms of grouping. A Baltimore printer, for example, may 
 be a member of the local union of his trade the Baltimore Typographical 
 Union; of the national union of his trade the International Typographical 
 Union ; of the city federation the Baltimore Federation of Labor ; of 
 a national federation the American Federation of Labor; of a local 
 trades council the Baltimore Allied Printing Trades Council, and finally, 
 of a national trades council the International Allied Printing Trades Asso- 
 ciation. Each of these forms of grouping might, therefore, embrace 
 all the trade unionists in the United States. As a matter of fact, some 
 of them include in their membership only a small part of the total number 
 of trade unionists. The number of members of all the local trades 
 councils in the United States, for example is probably less than one- 
 fourth of the total number of trade unionists. 
 
 The forms of trade-union grouping have steadily increased in number. 
 The local trade union dates its origin from the beginning of the nine- 
 teenth century; the city federation from 1827; the national trade union, 
 as an effective form of organization, from 1850. Trades councils, local 
 and national, are a development of the last twenty-five years. 
 
 The inter-relations of these forms of grouping the elements in 
 American labor organization have been determined slowly, and from time 
 to time the changing needs of the trade-union movement have necessi- 
 tated readjustments of these relations. As might be expected from the 
 political analogy, the relationship which has proved most practicable has 
 been the dominance of some one of the forms of grouping over the others. 
 Whenever the tide of trade unionism has risen markedly, the desire to 
 give unity to the labor movement has led to the assumption of leader- 
 ship and control by one or another of the forms of grouping. In the 
 history of American labor organization, four distinct structural forms are 
 distinguishable, each of which emerges in a time of rapid growth in the 
 trade-union movement. The periods in the development of the structure 
 of American labor organization may accordingly be roughly defined as 
 extending from 1800 to 1815, from 1827 to 1838, from 1879 to 1888, and 
 from 1897 to the present. In the years between these periods the labor 
 movement was relatively weak and the relations of the various forms of 
 grouping were less sharply defined. 
 
3O OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 In the earliest period from the end of the eighteenth century tc 
 about 1815 the local union was the only form of trade-union grouping 
 Among the local unions of the different trades in the same city there was 
 no substantial connection. 
 
 The second period, extending from 1827 to 1838, was marked by the 
 rise of the city federation or, as it was then called, the trades' union, 
 The admirable study of this period by Professor Commons and Miss 
 Sumner shows that the labor movement of the period was largely directed 
 and controlled by the city federations. Attempts to form national trade 
 unions were made, but failed. The city federation united to form a 
 national federation, the National Trades Union, but this exercised prac- 
 tically no power and its life was short. 
 
 A characteristic feature of American trade unionism from 1865 to 
 1888 was the formation of a number of the national federations in which 
 the controlling elements were the city federation, and, to a less extent, 
 the local union. The International Industrial Assembly of North Amer- 
 ica, organized in 1864, the National Labor Union, active from 1866 to 
 1870, the Industrial Congress, organized in 1873, and the Knights 
 of Labor, organized as a national federation in 1878, were alike 
 in this respect. These national federations were designed to exercise 
 functions distinct from those exercised by the .national and local 
 unions, but the evident desirability of bringing the entire labor 
 movement into unity led in the latest and strongest of these organiza- 
 tions, the Knights of Labor, to the gradual development of the idea 
 that the national federation should be dominant in the structure of labor 
 organization. The opposition of the national trade unions to a structural 
 form in which the national union became subordinate to the national 
 federation led to the bitter struggle between the Knights and the national 
 unions which characterized the years from 1885 to 1888. 
 
 The fourth period in the structural history of American trade union- 
 ism from 1897 to the present has been distinguished by the increasing 
 control exercised by the national trade union over the other forms of 
 grouping. This development, which forms the subject of the present 
 paper, will be treated with reference to: (i) local unions, (2) national 
 federations, (3) city federations, (4) local and national allied trades 
 councils. 
 
 The number of national unions affiliated with the American Federation 
 of Labor has increased steadily since 1897. In 1911 the only important 
 national unions not in affiliation with the Federation were the Locomo- 
 tive Engineer's, the Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, the Railroad 
 Trainmen, the Railway Conductors, the Flint Glass Workers, and the 
 Brick-layers and Masons. The total membership of the non-affiliated 
 unions in 1911, at a liberal estimate, did not exceed 600,000, while the 
 membership of the affiliated unions was approximately 1,800,000. 
 
 No rival national federation has been able in this period to offer 
 effective competition. The Knights of Labor has been practically an 
 extinct organization. The American Labor Union, organized in 1902 to 
 promote industrial unionism, went out of existence in 1905. The Indus- 
 trial Workers of the World, organized in 1905 as the successor of the 
 
TRADE-UNION DEVELOPMENT IN BRIEF 31 
 
 American Labor Union, lost in 1907 the support of its only important 
 national union, the Western Federation of Miners, which affiliated in 
 1911 with the American Federation of Labor. 
 
 Extent of Trade Unionism 
 
 (From an article on "The Extent of Trade Unionism," by 
 Dr. Leo Wolman, of the University of Michigan, 1917. Dr. 
 Wolman's estimates as to the extent of trade unionism in trades, 
 considered highly "organizable" by "labor leaders," are the most 
 liberal, probably, which have been made. They may be said to 
 represent the extreme claims of the closed shop advocates, and 
 show that 81.6 per cent of the workers, only certain trades con- 
 sidered "organizable" being included, are not members of trade 
 unions.) 
 
 The total membership of trade unions in the United States in 1910 
 was 2,116,317; in the same year the total number of persons gainfully 
 engaged in industry in this country was 38,134,712. The members of trade 
 unions, therefore, constituted in the last census year 5.5 per cent of the 
 industrial population of the United States. This percentage, however, 
 appreciably underestimates the strength of the trade union movement 
 because of the inclusion, in the aggregate of persons "gainfully engaged" 
 in industry, of members of the employing and salaried classes. By com- 
 bining those groups of industry that are composed of members of the 
 employing, salaried, and fee-receiving classes, such as merchants, man- 
 agers, and clergymen, a total for this group of 10,939,808 is obtained. 
 Accordingly, the wage earning class in 1910 can be said to have numbered 
 27,194,904 persons; and of this number 7.7 per cent were members of 
 labor organizations. Adherents of the labor movement would still main- 
 tain that this last index based upon a group that includes such wage 
 earners as agricultural laborers and domestic servants, was not fairly 
 indicative of the actual strength and extent of trade unionism. They 
 would use as a basis for the calculation of the percentage of organiza- 
 tion that group of wage earners which the trade union makes definite 
 and sustained efforts to organize. Since no such efforts have been made, 
 until the present at least, to organize agricultural laborers and domestic 
 servants, because of their conditions of individual isolation, and similarly 
 because the social and economic status of such employes as clerks and 
 stenographers precludes any large extension in organization among that 
 class of workers, it is contended that a fair estimate of the extent of 
 labor organization can be based upon a group in which these classes 
 are not included. Furthermore, practically every trade union maintains 
 an. age limit below which it will not admit workmen in the .industry 
 into membership in the union. The average lower age limit for all trade 
 unions may be roughly stated at twenty years. When all persons engaged 
 in industry as agricultural laborers, in domestic and personal service, in 
 such occupations as stenographers and saleswomen, and also persons 
 below the age of twenty be combined and the total for this group be 
 deducted from the 27,000,000 wage-earners in the United States in 1910 
 a resulting group of, 11,490,944 persons, who may be characterized as 
 
32 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 constituting a potential trade union membership is obtained. And wi 
 this class as a basis the degree of organization is found to be 18.4 p 
 cent. Accordingly, the most conservative survey of the situation wou 
 indicate that in the United States in 1910, 92.3 per cent of the wag 
 earners were unorganized; whereas the most liberal estim . ,s wou 
 show that 81.6 per cent of those persons who are susceptible of orga 
 ization were without the trade unions. 
 
 An Analysis of the Labor Movement 
 
 (An editorial on the "Past, Present and Future of Organize 
 Labor" in the National Labor Digest, November, 1920.) 
 
 Long ago Labor was about the cheapest commodity in the worl< 
 It was unjustly regarded as a distinct class of the lower order, entirel 
 beneath notice, except as the needs of the moment required its service 
 The laboring man and his family, generally speaking, lived in the ram 
 shackle houses and shanties of the unimproved outskirts of any community 
 or in densely populated, unhealthy tenement houses. In very many locali 
 ties workers were half fed, half clothed, and, at not infrequent time.' 
 enabled to live only through the charity of the community. It is no 
 beyond the memory of the present generation when ordinary labor wa 
 paid 50 and 75 cents and $1.00 per day and the man was lucky who sue 
 ceeded in getting in 200 days' work during a year. 
 
 It was due to abuses that the organized labor movement was con 
 ceived. It was not founded so much on an "ideal," as on a genuine neces 
 sity and it adopted the only means of progress at its disposal at thai 
 time. The philosophy of the movement dealt only with the "rights" oi 
 labor, practically ignoring obligations. Its followers endeavored to achieve 
 almost wholly by force. They assumed, and not without cause, that the 
 world was arrayed against any movement to better the condition of those 
 who labored. They knew they had to fight. Founded in this spirit, 
 scattered organizations of workers grew up and fought many hard battles 
 in the effort to improve their lot. In this same belligerent spirit the 
 crusaders have continued their march, leaving their impress on 
 every decade through which they have passed. The unpleasant details 
 of the struggles can be passed over. It is enough to say that the move- 
 ment was prosecuted with vigor and that it finally compelled society to 
 recognize the human element in industry, resulting in the development of 
 the self-respecting workers of the present day. * * * 
 
 In its earlier efforts, when it was but an infant and irresponsible, 
 organized labor had little and could afford to risk all on a chance play. 
 Generally speaking, it advanced chiefly by force. Then, gradually, there 
 came a different day. It had progressed to a point where it ceased to be 
 but an incident in the nation's affairs. During the Great War, and imme- 
 diately after, it attained its greatest height in history. More industries 
 recognized its principles, and it received better pay, than it had ever 
 known before. It had every opportunity to prove to the world the genuine 
 worth of organization. It might have made a solid place for itself at 
 the council table with capital. With capital it might have discussed the 
 
TRADE-UNION DEVELOPMENT IN BRIEF 33 
 
 advisability of that and the possibility of this, wherever "that" and "this" 
 were questions bearing on the workers' welfare, and had its say in finally 
 determining such questions. It was in a position to make legitimate, rea- 
 sonable demands for a vast army of workers and to have those demands 
 recognized. Organized labor had achieved much, consequently it had 
 much to lose it could no longer afford to be the reckless gambler. But 
 it would be absurd to pretend that it had not finally ventured forth once 
 too often on the uncertain power of force. 
 
 Organized labor gambled away, in a short while, much of its gains of 
 years. It tossed away the most valuable opportunities. Strike after 
 strike little nagging strikes and big strikes and violations of agreements 
 were the principal means used to disrupt its own house. Curtailment of 
 production slacking on the job along with demands for higher and 
 higher wages was another effective method used to further opposition to 
 itself and cancel its gains. It was slow to condemn the destructionists 
 within its own ranks, there to disrupt every sound relation between 
 employer and employe wherever found. It housed the Fosters and the 
 Fitzpatricks. It gave such men equal rights in its council halls with men 
 working honestly in behalf of honest men. It allowed the rule-or-ruin 
 radicals to mold its reputation. Some leaders and many bodies felt it 
 their duty to indorse every radical or vicious activity that any one started. 
 Some even went so far as to indorse the recent "outlaw" rail strike and 
 to vote funds to further it in opposition to the Brotherhood's wishes and 
 every honest union principle. 
 
 Great Responsibilities Have Been Badly Managed 
 
 Altogether too frequently have labor bodies been led by men with 
 vision narrowed down until they could see only their own selfish, and, 
 at times, dishonest ends. Too often have workers been led and repre- 
 sented by men utterly unable to reason beyond the logic of "we want it 
 because we want it." Too often have such men endeavored to carry their 
 point by mere bluff in lieu of sound facts. Too readily have they called 
 strikes, too readily have they countenanced violence, too readily have 
 they sacrificed other men's employment and risked their all over some 
 trivial matter that a more capable, responsible leader would have adjusted 
 with few words. Organized labor dealt carelessly with its great oppor- 
 tunity. It failed to make industry and society in general see in it some- 
 thing they could not get along without. This has all been a great mis- 
 take. It was bad management of a great responsibility. 
 
 With their great appreciation of power, employers over the country 
 marveled at labor's careless abuse of so much which it had gained. Friends 
 of labor stood back and shuddered as they watched the radicals the van- 
 dals undermining the house of the workers, while there was not a 
 process or hand of authority in all the great labor scheme to check them 
 in their mad careers. There is hardly a good citizen who does -not regret 
 the misuse and abuse to which organized labor's possessions were sub- 
 jected in its hour of greatest influence. * * * 
 
 To-day the voice of organized labor is heard echoing across the land 
 in protest against the progress of a great open shop movement. Tlbe cry 
 
34 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 which is heard is not without cause, for much of labor's influence ai 
 power have been shorn and its future is uncertain. % 
 
 More than a million men are to-day out of employment and the pro 
 pect is that many more will be idle within a short time. Many of the 
 are union men who feel that their organization should have kept itse 
 in a position where it could have been of help to them that it shou 
 have known better the waters it sailed that it should have steered 
 saner, broader course that it should have chosen the calmer, safer cha: 
 nels instead of the dangerous rapids. 
 
 Men in need of work or money think lightly of past achievemen 
 and little of promises for the future. To-day is their time of nee 
 In time of plenty there is little need for help. In time of scarcity any he 
 is welcome. In a time like the present organized labor could have be( 
 of inestimable benefit to its members had it guarded the place it so recent 
 held. While it could not have avoided a measure of unemployment, an 
 in some cases, wage reductions during the readjustment, it could ha 1 
 protected its members by joining with employers in meeting the proble 
 in planning the distribution of men and work during the inevitab 
 unemployment period. In that way all could have shared in such woi 
 as existed and all could have weathered the storm with a minimum of wai 
 and suffering. 
 
 Organized Labor Has Abused Its Opportunities 
 
 The present state of organized labor has come about, not becau: 
 organization was wrong, not because it did not have opportunities, bi 
 because it abused its opportunities, because methods were wrong, syste: 
 and control were lacking, reason was permitted to run unchecked, an 
 union labor force failed to credit any possibility of equal or superic 
 strength to other forces it was sure to encounter. 
 
 Labor is confident that it will return to power with renewed li: 
 when industry again gets into full swing, but many sound thinkers, : 
 the ranks of both labor and capital, are convinced that it can nev< 
 return on the basis of its old policies. Most of those policies ha\ 
 been in force the movement's inception and have outworn the usi 
 fulness they possessed in an age that has passed. 
 
 Now organized labor must make its way back step by step. That 
 will eventually get back to a place of power, there is no denying. Ho 
 long it will retain or how it will manage its power on its next ascensioi 
 are the questions. If it is to attain a worth-while, enduring position, 
 must start at once to assume the full responsbilities that intertwine tr 
 advantages it has secured. It must not only broaden its philosophy, an 
 base its policies on sound facts, but it must develop a constructive, ration; 
 form of co-operation with all other factors to the social service it render 
 It must base its hope and promise for future success upon methods th; 
 will stand the closest scrutiny, and upon a full regard and consideratio 
 for, and usefulness to, all other legitimate elements of society. 
 
 From now on labor will be wise to place less confidence in artifici; 
 economic pressure. It will be wise to remember that there is a lim 
 beyond which it is dangerous to press demands. It will be wise to remen 
 
TRADE-UNION DEVELOPMENT IN BRIEF 35 
 
 her that the law of supply and demand, coupled with living costs, will 
 always be the predominant force in determining wages this, in spite 
 of anything organized labor or organized capital can do to prevent it. 
 It will be wise to cooperate with industry in meeting many problems 
 in which it is directly interested, prepared to give and take as just occasion 
 demands. 
 
 If organized labor is to control workers and have an effective way in 
 the working conditions of the country, it must make the fact of its being 
 organized mean something to the employer and the public as well as to 
 its own members. It must prove itself not only just, reasonable and 
 capable, but an institution of value to workers, employers, and the public. 
 This can be accomplished only through the high quality of the service 
 which it, an organization, can prove its ability to render to society at large. 
 
 In its efforts to make a solid place for itself in the industrial world, 
 one which can not be successfully attacked, organized labor must have 
 the full and unreserved support of its members in its cooperation with 
 industry. If union men are to be at a premium in industry, they must 
 make themselves worth that premium; they must prove to the employer 
 and the world that they are better workers, from the standpoint of quality 
 and quantity of production, because of union affiliation. Otherwise organ- 
 ization of labor will be simply an instrument of coercion and will remain 
 without appeal to the employer, a large percentage of the workers, and 
 the public. Antagonism will continue to exist. 
 
 Unless organized labor will discard fallacies which beset its position, 
 it must stand on wobbly legs or, perhaps, topple completely over. 
 
36 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Do Open Shop Employers Hire Unionists? 
 
 Will Open Shop Success Destroy Unions? 
 
 Can Unions Be Made Constructive? 
 
 A familiar closed shop argument is that the "open shop" 
 is really a "non-union" shop, in which union members will not 
 be employed. Yet the Seattle Union Record of December 15th, 
 1920, prints a statement that the printing trades of Seattle are 
 "open shop with ninety per cent union men." 
 
 The International Typographical Union in its 1920 con- 
 vention voted 171 to 79 against a proposition to revoke the card 
 of any member who obtains employment in an open shop. This 
 is not the policy of most of the closed shop unions; but it indi- 
 cates that unionists are employed in open shops. Otherwise, the 
 question would not have been advanced. 
 
 The metal trades employers in New York City recently estab- 
 lished the open shop; it is said that ninety per cent of the men now 
 employed are union members. 
 
 Will Not Work with Non-Unionists 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Anton Johannsen, general organizei 
 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, before 
 the Industrial Relations Commission, at Stockton, August 25 
 1914. Page 4,800 of the record. This and the following quota- 
 tion show that many open shop employers have no union workers 
 because union rules forbid their members working by the side 
 of independent workers.) 
 
 COMMISSIONER COMMONS: The issue, as I understood it to be state( 
 a while ago, was in regard to this ultimatum in the last year. If yot 
 will notice it, they insisted that the agreements that have been proposec 
 by the unions that they should only be union men who were employed 
 
 MR. JOHANNSEN: Why, certainly. I can't speak for all the unions 
 but so far as the building trades are concerned we refuse to work witl 
 non-union men. But he can hire all the non-union men he wants; but i 
 he wants our services he will have to employ union men. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. H. W. Dennett, former organize 
 for the International Typographical Union, before the Indus 
 trial Relations Commission, September 14, 1914. Page 5,780 o 
 the record.) 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : In speaking of arbitration, following what yo 
 said about arbitration, would you be willing to arbitrate the question o 
 the closed shop; that is, whether you would have the closed shop or not 
 
 MR. DENNETT: I would not. 
 
Do OPEN SHOP EMPLOYERS HIRE UNIONISTS? 37 
 
 The American Federation of Labor in 1890 went on record 
 (p. 42 of the convention proceedings) as declaring that it is incon- 
 sistent for union men to work with non-union men. 
 
 Organization of Office Workers 
 
 (Testimony of President C. H. Markham of the Illinois 
 Central Railroad before the Industrial Relations Commission, 
 April 7, 1915. Page 9,705 of the record. Reasons for opposing 
 organization of certain employes.) 
 
 Before proceeding further with this statement, it may be as well to 
 call attention to the fact that one of the unions involved in this matter 
 included the clerks. It has never been the policy of the railroad company 
 to recognize a labor union composed of clerks. These men sustain a more 
 or less confidential relation to their employers. They manifestly stand a 
 class by themselves. By reason of the nature of their duties they are much 
 closer to the railroad officials than are the workmen in the shops or the 
 employes on the trains. It must be admitted by every fairminded man 
 that if these clerks join the unions and become associated with organized 
 labor generally, their obligation to the interests of the company would 
 thereby be seriously impaired. The opportunity which these clerks would 
 necessarily have of knowing what goes on in the general offices .of the 
 company would lead to endless trouble and strife between the officers and 
 the employes. Every trivial matter would be reported to the unions, and 
 there would be no such thing as the company having any secrets whatever 
 relating to competitive business, negotiations with labor unions, or the 
 like, from its employes. It was therefore not considered advisable to 
 recognize the right of the clerks to organize in this manner. 
 
 Our judgment in declining to recognize a union of the clerks was 
 amply vindicated by the course of events after the strike. I will a little 
 later show that at Memphis, New Orleans and elsewhere, the business of 
 the company was greatly hindered by the action of the striking clerks in 
 removing and concealing records, in removing cards from cars, and in 
 exchanging cards on cars so that the utmost confusion resulted from their 
 action. The mix up caused by changing the cards on the cars, led to ship- 
 ments going astray, to great delay in the delivery of freight, to unneces- 
 sary out-of-line hauls, and to the payment of heavy claims based on the 
 failure to deliver goods promptly, or, in some cases, to deliver perishable 
 goods at all. 
 
 The Open Shop and Unions 
 
 _It is frequently asserted that if open shop conditions gener- 
 ally prevailed labor organizations could not exist. If labor organ- 
 
 izations can maintain their existence only because of the unfair 
 closed shop, then something must be wrong with them. But as' 
 a matter of fact open shop conditions will not in any way lessen 
 
38 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 the possibilities of good work by organizations based on right 
 principles which are practiced in the right manner. 
 
 It is being claimed to-day, without the slightest attempt to 
 substantiate such statements by facts, that employers are laying 
 off men who are receiving high wages so that they can be re- 
 employed at lower wages and under open shop conditions. 
 Reports of the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics and the 
 New York Industrial Commission indicate that up to Novem- 
 ber 30, 1920, the wage reductions which had occured were not so 
 great as the! decline in food prices. What employer is going to lay 
 off men and stop production when he does not have to? Every 
 firm has to pay interest upon its investment, which includes 
 the cost of the plant and machinery. The salaries of the officers 
 and office force must be paid^ Expenses such as ligntmg, heat- 
 ing and insurance must be paid. Taxes must be paid. If a plant 
 is closed for a month, it simply means that expenses keep on 
 j-unning during the month; that it will have to operate just so 
 much longer before any profit can be shown. Practically every 
 manufacturing plant or mercantile establishment, which is oper- 
 ated by men of ability, is run on borrowed capital ; practically all 
 of them owp thousands of dollars to the banks. If they are idle 
 their profits cease, and the banks, to protect themselves, naturally 
 begin to squeeze and curtail their loans. No business will remain 
 idle more than it absolutely has to. The slightest knowledge 
 of economic laws makes this clear. Those who talk of a gigantic 
 plot to close down industry and bring about open shop conditions 
 certainly believe the public is gullible. 
 
 + This is the view taken by the New York Times in a recent 
 editorial. 
 
 "The unemployment of capital is the unemployment of labor. Nothing 
 pleases the capitalist more than to put his dollars to work, and he cannot 
 do that without paying wages. Nothing offends the economist more than 
 the unemployment of capital, because the interest unearned to-day cannot 
 be earned to-morrow. Charles M. Schwab is both a capitalist and a master 
 workman. He worked his dollars hard, and is an easier taskmaster for 
 others than for himself. His grievance against the tax laws which oppress 
 all industry is not that they part him from his money, but that they make 
 capital unproductive. 'Excessive taxes tend toward leveling, but it is level- 
 ing downward, because the supply of free capital arising from profits, 
 instead of being turned back into industry, is turned into the coffers of 
 the Government and there is mostly wasted/ Government makes no 
 money, and pays no wages in productive industry. 
 
 "The taxes which the Government takes are diverted from the wage 
 fund. When the taxes are put on the rich the poor do not have to pay 
 
Do OPEN SHOP EMPLOYERS HIRE UNIONISTS? 39 
 
 them, but they suffer from loss of wages which the taxes would produce 
 if they were invested capital. If there is to be any surplus, there must be 
 production; and when profits and production stop together the country 
 suffers from loss of production, just as labor suffers from loss of wages. 
 "It is remarkable with what unthinking gayety labor strikes and 
 sacrifices wages. It is even more remarkable in contrast with the gloom 
 with which capital stops production. It is the difference between ignorance 
 and knowledge, between theory and practice." 
 
 No Right to Dictate 
 
 (From pamphlet No. 2, February 15, 1920, of the Associated 
 Industries of Tacoma.) 
 
 l"* Organized labor leaders, on the other hand, have immediately shown 
 la spirit of absolute antagonism to all efforts of the employer to bring 
 
 'about a better understanding. They say "the plunderbunds" of capital 
 seek to destroy unionism, lower wages and living conditions and enslave 
 the freeborn American workingman. The Associated Industries, they 
 declare, is the medium through which labor is to be crushed. 
 
 These assertions are absolutely false. The Associated Industries does 
 not seek to crush organized labor as such, but we do seek to nullify the 
 autocratic power of dictation, the weapon used by the radical leaders of 
 organized labor in gaining unreasonable demands which slowly but surely 
 leads to the destruction of American industry. Through this same auto- 
 cratic power the individual worker is denied the right to obtain employ- 
 ment, except at the pleasure r>f the union leader. Efficiency is destroyed, 
 the slothful workman is protected and the skilled and efficient craftsman 
 robbed of his true worth. 
 
 We believe in the right of men to organize for their own protection, 
 but we do not believe in their right to dictate to other workmen, for whom, 
 for what, and when, they shall work. Neither do we believe in an abso- 
 
 I lute power which shall dictate to the employer whom he shall employ and 
 
 (jo jyhat extent. 
 
 Theory Versus Facts 
 
 (From the Industrial Relationist, published by the Merchants 
 and Manufacturers Association of Los Angeles.) 
 
 It is said every day that there is no brief against organized labor as 
 such. What does that mean? 
 
 It means that the original theory of trade unionism is perfectly right, 
 proper and perhaps even benevolent, but we are not facing the theory of 
 Labor Unionism, we are facing facts, and the facts are that labor unions, 
 as they operate to-day, under radical domination, are a menace to the 
 integrity of this country. 
 
 Their demands are too frequently unjust and impossible to grant 
 because they are economically unsound, or prohibitive, or confiscatory, or, 
 as is often the case, they are all three of these things. 
 
 Too many labor leaders are unscrupulous or ill-advised men who 
 
4Q OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 mislead and perform many acts which benefit themselves and their small 
 radical clique most, and which are detrimental to the entire community, 
 including particularly the members of their own unions. 
 
 Radical labor unionism established a dead line of inefficiency. It cur- 
 tails production, it limits the ambitious, helps the inefficient and lazy, 
 obstructs progress and accomplishes sheer mediocrity. 
 
 Radical labor unionism seeks to limit, and in many cases does limit, 
 the freedom of American citizens. Any organization which says in effect, 
 "Thou shalt not work without the permission of labor unions," or "Thou 
 shalt employ no man without the permission of labor unions," is so funda- 
 mentally wrong that no well-informed person can subscribe to its doctrines, 
 and least of all can labor ultimately afford to be hampered and limited in 
 that way. 
 
 Radical labor unionism seeks to compel, to coerce and to force unwill- 
 ing men to do its bidding by threats and acts which are relics of savagery, 
 and which are a blot upon the escutcheon of any civilized country. 
 
 Radical labor unionism feeds the flames of class consciousness which 
 is an un-American thing; it has sought minority and class control and 
 has even sought to set itself above the government of the United States. 
 
 Labor unions have apparently been utiwittingly used as a vehicle for 
 destructive programs of many kinds. 
 
 These are some of the facts which were not part of the original 
 theory of trade unions. It is true that there is a majority of conservative, 
 wise and broad visioned men in organized labor who would like to see the 
 original theories replace the present facts, but though greater in numbers, 
 their counsel ' does not prevail, and until such sane counsel does pre- 
 vail, it is greatly to be regretted that organized labor cannot be trusted. 
 
 Destruction Versus Repair 
 
 (From the testimony before the Industrial Relations Com- 
 mission, May 17, 1915, of Mr. Walter Drew, Counsel for the 
 National Erectors' Association.) 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: If you had to say, Mr. Drew, whether 
 organized labor in its present capacity, with all the faults that you have 
 alleged against it, with all its weaknesses and ramifications, would you 
 have it wiped out of existence? 
 
 MR. DREW : Not at all, Mr. O'Connell ; I think that would be a very 
 foolish thing to do. You may plant a tree out in your back yard, and 
 because of its location or the lack of proper training it may grow to be 
 crooked. That does not mean that you have got to tear the tree up and 
 throw it away. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: I take it that the general thought you 
 have given to bring your mind to its general criticism of organized labor 
 that you must have given some thought as to what organized labor might 
 be and how it should conduct itself and how it should be organized. I 
 am sure this commission would and I would be intensely interested to 
 have your opinion, because of the specialty you apparently have made of 
 
Do OPEN SHOP EMPLOYERS HIRE UNIONISTS? 41 
 
 one side of the question, as to whether you have given thought to the 
 other side. 
 
 MR. DREW: Mr. O'Connell, I am a firm believer in the organization 
 of workers, I am a firm believer in collective bargaining. I think that 
 nothing more effective could be done in the direction of realizing both of 
 those things than to get the union movement of to-day back to bedrock 
 a sound economic foundation; to think a little more of the plowshare and 
 perhaps a little less of the sword. There isn't any fair argument against 
 a laboring man using his power, even in militant methods, using your 
 people when they are organized with all the discipline of soldiers in war. 
 But the trouble with that is that you develop class consciousness, accord- 
 ing to my mind, along the line of organization; you emphasize the strong 
 arm of the organization so much that the man forgets his own duties 
 and responsibilities and strength as a productive factor in industry. 
 
 Now, I have read through the different trade magazines of the coun- 
 try, including the Federationist, and I do not find a word from cover to 
 cover advising the workingmen to increase their efficiency or capacity or 
 to co-operate with the employer in securing as great an output as possible 
 for the common result of his capital and their labor. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: Probably the laborer believes there are 
 now enough engaged in that work 
 
 MR. DREW (interrupting): Well, I don't know; labor is the one 
 great essential to production ; and if the laborer limits production or takes 
 a stand that limits production there is just that much less in the pot for 
 him to fight for a share of. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: I understand you to say, Mr. Drew, that 
 you are a firm believer in organization, and with that in the right of bar- 
 gaining? 
 
 MR. DREW: No sane, sensible person nowadays objects to those con- 
 ceptions. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: And you agree that we can not have col- 
 lective bargaining without organization? 
 
 MR. DREW: Exactly; exactly. Therefore, I think it is a greater pity 
 that the ability of organized labor to realize its proper functions as a 
 party to collective agreements should be so handicapped by a lot of these 
 things that they do. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: Well, first, how are we going to have 
 organization with the opposition of employers, who employ the workmen, 
 against organization? How, then, can we have collective bargaining? 
 
 MR. DREW: Mr. O'Connell, if you will go through the great national 
 industries of to-day that are upon the open shop basis, you will find that 
 they were once upon a closed shop basis. Organized labor has collective 
 agreements; had collective agreements with our people; they had collec- 
 tive agreements with the metal trades and founders. They developed the 
 strength to secure them and to have them in actual operation. Why have 
 they lost them? I think that is a very pertinent inquiry. Why are indus- 
 tries that were once closed shop to-day open shop? 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: I think the answer is that employers 
 
42 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 have combined for the purpose of declaring for what they called the open 
 shop. 
 
 MR. DREW : But why did they do that if the agreement with organized 
 labor was desirable, was right, was good for the industry, brought about 
 an increase of output, brought about peace in the trade? There were no 
 questions of competition among these men, because the great mass of 
 employers in these industries were parties to those agreements, so that each 
 manufacturer was competing on the same basis with others. Why did 
 they get together to throw off the control of the closed shop? I can tell 
 you why they did it with the structural iron workers. 
 
 Over 50 Per Cent in Open Shops 
 
 (From testimony before the Industrial Relations Commis- 
 sion, June 26, 1914, of Mr. John Watt, business agent of the 
 Pattern Makers' Association, Philadalphia, page 2,914, of the 
 record. Mr. Watt shows that over half of the membership of his 
 union are employed in open shops.) 
 
 MR. BUSIEK : How many pattern makers are there employed here in 
 Philadelphia, approximately? 
 
 MR. WATT: Approximately 600. .' fi 
 
 MR. BUSIEK: And how strongly are you organized? 
 
 MR. WATT: About 70 per cent. 
 
 MR. BUSIEK: About 70 per cent? 
 
 MR. WATT: Yes. 
 
 MR. BUSIEK: Have you any closed shops in Philadelphia? 
 
 MR. WATT: Yes. 
 
 MR. BUSIEK : About how many men working in closed shops ? 
 
 MR. WATT: Well, there are about 200. 
 
 MR. BUSIEK: About 200? 
 
 MR. WATT: Yes. 
 
 MR. BUSIEK: And your other men working in the other open shops? 
 
 MR. WATT: Yes, sir. 
 
 Constructive Organization 
 
 The possibility of labor organizations which will be beneficial 
 both to the workers and the public are pointed out in the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 An editorial in the Weekly Review of January 26, 1921, 
 
 says: 
 
 "Union labor leaders constantly have as their objective the universal 
 closed shop. They regard non-membership in a union, in any trade in 
 which there is a union, as treason to the cause of labor. The attitude is 
 quite intelligible. But there is no reason why intelligent persons, looking 
 at the matter from the standpoint of the general public, should assent to 
 the notion that the labor unions must be either everything or nothing. A 
 union may be powerful without being omnipotent. If it succeeds in bring- 
 ing into its organization a preponderating, or even a very large, body of 
 
Do OPEN SHOP EMPLOYERS HIRE UNIONISTS? 43 
 
 the workers in the trade, it can exercise powerful pressure upon employ- 
 ers in behalf of any reasonable and, if circumstances favor it, even of 
 very unreasonable demands. Yet many persons see no distinction be- 
 tween opposition to the closed-shop principle and opposition to the whole 
 system of labor organization. They do not stop to think either of the 
 large possibilities of united action which union labor can avail itself of 
 without proscription of non-union labor, or of the intolerable situation 
 which would arise if 'such proscription were complete. In that situation, 
 we should all be at the absolute mercy of the labor unions ; they could at 
 any moment enforce any demand they might think fit to make by the 
 threat of paralysis of the whole activities of the community. It is the 
 privilege of the members of a union to refuse to work alongside of any- 
 body who is not a member of a union; and if the union is sufficiently 
 strong, it may, by making use of this privilege, be able to % compel . any 
 given employer to accept the closed shop principle. But likewise it is the 
 privilege of any employer to refuse to accept that principle. Those em- 
 ployers who are doing so, and who, in doing so, are not resorting to 
 measures that are in themselves oppressive or unlawful, are fighting a 
 good fight for us all a fight against the reduction of the country, to a 
 condition of subjection to arbitrary class-rule." 
 
 Efficiency What Is Needed 
 
 (From "Latter Day Problems," by J. Laurence Laughlin, 
 Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Chicago,, pub- 
 lished by Charles Scribner's Sons.) 
 
 In contrast with the existing policy, which can end only in discourage- 
 ment and failure, permit me, wholly in the interest of the membership of 
 the unions, to suggest another policy which will certainly end in higher 
 wages and open a road to permanent progress for all working men. 
 Instead of the principle of monopoly of competitors, I offer the principle 
 of productivity or efficiency, as a basis on which the action of unions 
 should be founded. 
 
 By productivity is meant the practical ability to add to the product 
 turned out in any industry. The relative productivity of labor operates 
 on its price just as does utility on the price of any staple article improve 
 the quality of it and you increase the demand for it. This general truth 
 is nothing new. The purchaser of a horse will pay more for a good 
 horse than for a poor one. A coat made of good material will sell for 
 more than one made of poor material. Why? Because it yields more 
 utility, or satisfaction, to the purchaser. In the same way, if the utility 
 of the labor to the employer is increased, it will be more desired; that is, 
 if the laborer yields more of that for which the employer hires labor, the 
 employer will pay more for it, on purely commercial grounds. 
 
 Now it happens that where productivity is low, that is where men are 
 generally unskilled the supply is quite beyond the demand for that kind 
 of labor. Productivity being given, supply regulates the price. Obviously, 
 to escape from the thraldom of an over-supply of labor in any given class, 
 or occupation, the laborer must improve his efficiency. That is another 
 
44 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 way of saying that, if he trains himself and acquires skill, he moves up 
 into a higher and less crowded class of labor. The effect on wages is 
 two-fold; (i) he is now in a group where the supply is relatively less 
 to demand than before; and (2) his utility as a laborer to the employer 
 is greater, and acts to increase the demand for his services. Productivity, 
 therefore, is the one sure method of escape from the depressing effects 
 on wages of an oversupply of labor. 
 
 It is unnecessary to describe in detail the forms by which productivity 
 shows itself in the concrete. If the laborer is a teamster, he can improve 
 in sobriety, punctuality, knowledge of horses, skill in driving, improved 
 methods of loading and unloading, avoidance of delays, and in scrupulous 
 honesty. If, moreover, he studies his employer's business and consults 
 his interest instead of studying how to put him at a disadvantage, or 
 instead of making work he still further increases his productivity and 
 value to his employer. In other occupations and in other grades of work 
 the process is simple. In fact, it is the ordinary influence of skill on 
 wages; and men have been acting on an understanding of time out of 
 mind. 
 
 To this suggestion it may be objected that the workman who makes 
 himself more efficient receives no more from an employer than the less 
 efficient; that employers treat all alike and are unwilling to recognize 
 skill. The fact is doubted; for it is incredible that intelligent managers 
 should be for any length of time blind to their own self-interest. But if 
 they are thus blind, and if they place an obstacle to the recognition of 
 merit and skill, then we at once see how the unions can make legitimate 
 use of their organized power of demanding higher wages for higher pro- 
 ductivity. Such demands are sure to meet with success. 
 
 This method of raising wages based on forces bringing about a 
 lessened supply and an increased demand, shows a difference as wide as 
 the poles from the existing artificial method of "bucking" against an over- 
 supply by an ineffective monopoly. To the laborer who wishes higher 
 wages the advantage of the former over the latter is so evident and so 
 great that further illustration or emphasis on this point would be out of 
 place. In the economic history of the last fifty or sixty, years in the 
 United States and Great Britain it appears that money wages have risen 
 by about fifty per cent for unskilled labor to over one hundred per cent 
 for higher grades of work, while the hours of labor per day have been 
 lowered considerably. Moreover, this gain in money wages has been 
 accompanied by a fall in the prices of many articles consumed by the 
 laboring class. This fortunate outcome has gone on simultaneously with 
 a progress in invention and in the industrial arts never before equaled in 
 the history of the world, and it is a progress which has enabled the same 
 labor and capital to turn out a greater number of units of product. In 
 fact, the enlargement of the output has been such that each unit could be 
 sold at a lower price than ever before and yet the value of the total prod- 
 uct of the industry has sufficed to pay the old return upon capital and also 
 to pay absolutely higher money wages to the workmen for a less number 
 of hours of labor in the day. Indeed, one is inclined to believe that the gain 
 in wages by the working classes in recent years has been due far more to 
 
Do OPEN SHOP EMPLOYERS HIRE UNIONISTS? 45 
 
 this increased productivity of industry and much less to the demands of 
 labor unions than has been generally supposed. The productivity method 
 of raising wages has the advantage over the one in present use in that it 
 gives a quid pro quo, and excites no antagonism on the part of the 
 employer. A pressure by strikes to have productivity recognized must be 
 successful, since an employer cannot afford the loss consequent on hiring 
 an inefficient workman. The insistence, as at present, on a uniform mini- 
 mum rate of wages by process of terrorism, and without regard to the 
 supply of possible competitors, cannot for a moment be considered in 
 comparison with the hopeful and successful method through improved 
 productivity. The one is outside, the other within, the control of any 
 individual initiative. 
 
 Why Not Require Efficiency and Character for Union Admission? 
 
 Keeping these things in mind, those of us who would like to see a 
 definite and permanent progress of the laboring classes believe that here 
 the unions have a great opportunity. They must drop their dogged attempts 
 to enforce a policy against the oversupply of labor by a futile monopoly; 
 it is as useless and hopeless as to try to sweep back the sea with a broom. 
 On the other hand, should the unions demand as conditions of admission 
 definite tests of efficiency and character, and work strenuously to raise 
 the level of their productivity, they would become limited bodies, com- 
 posed of men of high skill and efficiency. The difficulty of supply would 
 be conquered. -A monopoly would be created, but it would be a natural 
 and not an artificial one. The distinction between union and non-union 
 men would, then, be one between the skilled and the unskilled. The con- 
 test between union and non-union men would no longer be settled by force. 
 Thus the sympathy of employers and the public would be transferred 
 from the non-union, or the unfit, to the union, or the fit men. If space 
 were sufficient, interesting cases could be cited here of unions which have 
 already caught sight of the truth, and greatly improved their position 
 thereby. This policy unmistakably opens the path of hope and progress 
 for the future. 
 
 In contrast with the mistaken policy of the present, we may set down 
 the different ways in which productivity wpuld act upon the four evils 
 enumerated at the end of the second part of our study: 
 
 1. The wrong to the non-union man would disappear. The rivalry of 
 union and non-union men would no longer be the competition of equals, 
 because the non-union, or inferior men would be out of the competition 
 for given kinds of work. There is no wrong to a non-union man if he is 
 excluded from work for inefficiency. The wrong of to-day is that the union 
 often shields numbers of incapables. 
 
 2. Since the unionists would represent skill, and the non-unionists 
 lack of skill, there would be no need of force to hold the position of 
 natural monopoly. The perpetual defiance of the law in order to terrorize 
 non-union men would have no reason for its existence; and the worst 
 phase of unionism would disappear. Such a consummation alone would 
 be worth infinite pains; but if it should come in connection with a policy 
 which is morally certain to improve the condition of the workmen, not 
 to reach out for it is little short of crime. 
 
46 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 3. As another consequence of the new principle the unionist would 
 find himself and his comrades steadily gaining a higher standard of living 
 without resort to the artificial methods of politics. Legislation would not 
 be needed to fight against the results of the oversupply of labor. Like 
 ordinary businessmen, the unionists would find their affairs peacefully 
 settled in the arena of industry by permanent forces, and not in the un- 
 certain strife of legislatures and political conventions, in which they are 
 likely to be outwitted by clever party leaders. And yet the workmen 
 would retain in their organized unions the power to command justice 
 from those employers who are unjust. 
 
 4. The new policy would insure community of interest between em- 
 ployer and employe. This objective is so important, it has been so out- 
 rageously ignored in countless labor struggles, that to attain it would 
 almost be like the millennium; and yet, instead of being moonshine, it is 
 simple common sense. If the laborers knew and acted upon the fact that 
 skill and good-will were reasons why employers could pay better wages, 
 the whole face of the present situation would be changed. If it were 
 objected that the unfair and grasping employer would pocket the surplus 
 due to the improved efficiency of the laborer, it must be remembered 
 that the unions still retain their power of collective bargaining. But, of 
 course, the unions must not believe that demands can be made for 
 advances of an unlimited kind far beyond the services rendered to pro- 
 duction of any one agent, such as labor. 
 
 The new proposals would also completely remove the disastrous ten- 
 dency to make work. If men obtain payment in proportion to their pro- 
 ductivity, the greater the product the higher would be the wages; for 
 this has been the reading of economic history, no matter how individuals 
 here and there protest. Hence the result would be lower expenses of 
 production, a fall in the prices of staple goods, and a generally increased 
 welfare among those classes whose satisfactions have been increased. 
 
 Not only would the consumer be benefited, but the increased pro- 
 ductivity of industry would enable the home producer to sell his goods 
 cheaper in foreign markets. As things are going now, the hindrances to 
 production and making work by unions are the serious influences now 
 threatening to contract our foreign trade. The new policy proposed to 
 the unions would therefore aid the United States in keeping its present 
 advantages in the field of international competition. 
 
 While it has been impossible to discuss fully all the points which 
 may have arisen in the reader's mind, it must suffice to bring into bold 
 contrast the present erroneous policy of the labor unions with the possible 
 one of productivity. In a very true sense, the labor problem is a conflict 
 between different grades of skill. Legitimate industrial success comes 
 with the ability to use better than others the agencies of production. 
 One reason why managerial power commands such high wages is that a 
 highly capable leader in industry receives returns not merely for the use of 
 capital^ but because he sees and grasps an opportunity where other men 
 see nothing. No matter where a man begins in life, if he has skill, insight, 
 foresight, judgment, knowledge of men, and managerial force, he will 
 gain at least if not more than in proportion to his productivity. There- 
 
Do OPEN SHOP EMPLOYERS HIRE UNIONISTS? 47 
 
 fore, if the unions wish to elevate their fellow-workers, instead of break- 
 ing the heads of non-union men, they should set a premium on industrial 
 education. It ought to be as easy for a working man's child to become a 
 skilled craftsman a machinist, carpenter, mason or ' bricklayer in our 
 public school system as it is to acquire geography and algebra. By era- 
 dicating industrial incapacity and substituting skill therefor, we should 
 be increasing the wages of all classes, developing wealth in all forms, 
 and enlarging the well-being of the whole nation. 
 
 Organized But Not Unionized 
 
 (From an article entitled, "Organized But Not Unionized," 
 in the "New Sky Line," published by the Little Rock, Arkansas, 
 Board of Commerce, March 6, 1920.) 
 
 White Motor Trucks, Cleveland, O., are organized, but not unionized. 
 No walking delegate from the outside comes in to interfere or to tell 
 the men or the company what shall or shall not be done. The men have 
 a representative organization, made up from small groups, each group 
 having a representative. The representatives come direct from the work- 
 men, and meet at stated times in regular assembly. All matters for 
 consideration originate among the men, and are then discussed and passed 
 upon by the assembly. Those things possessing merit are adopted and 
 passed on to a higher body, composed of the heads of the departments, 
 or foremen and the others are rejected. When favorable consideration 
 is given to a matter by the higher body, it is then passed on to the execu- 
 tive heads of the business, where it is either approved or vetoed. Some- 
 times conferences are held between the executives and a committee from 
 the representative body, and matters that cannot be approved are modified 
 so as to meet approval. The history of this arrangement reveals very 
 few instances where the veto power has been exercised. The men are 
 invited to employ initiative, and to make suggestions for the improve- 
 ment of working conditions and factory conditions. Under this 
 plan the workmen find frequent opportunity to make suggestions that will 
 increase factory output or lower factory costs, and add to the changes in 
 the light of the company's ability to meet them out of the profits. The 
 results of this arrangement have been highly satisfactory to the men and 
 to the company. The men have been given increased pay on a basis of 
 reason and right, and through this co-operative spirit the company has 
 been able to meet the expectations of its men out of the profits accruing 
 from increased efficiency and factory output. Rational organization has 
 taken the place of the labor union in the White plant. The things con- 
 sidered by the men are things of common interest to the men and the 
 company, and harmony characterizes the deliberations. There are no 
 strikes, no labor troubles. A community of interest exists, and is re- 
 spected. The men make more money by earning more money, and not 
 by demanding it arbitrarily. The company is able to pay the men more 
 money out of the increased profits of the business, made through the 
 
48 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 initiative and increased efficiency of the men. This is the kind of labor 
 organization that will get somewhere and accomplish something. In 
 fact, it has accomplished much. It has no walking delegates, no paid 
 representatives, no* fines, suspensions or heavy dues. It has no outside 
 interference, no labor disputes or disturbances, and but few grievances, 
 most of which are individual, and adjudicated in a way to establish jus- 
 tice and promote harmony. 
 
 These Unions Did Not Die 
 
 "Street Railway Employment in the United States", a 
 bulletin issued in April, 1917, by the United States Bureau of 
 Labor Statistics, clearly demonstrates that unions may exist 
 where the open shop prevails. Sixty-seven agreements between 
 the Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway 
 Employes and the companies refer to "the matter of employes 
 becoming members of the association," says the government 
 bulletin on Page 308. "Membership is compulsory as a condition 
 of employment under the terms of 30 agreements, while the other 
 37 contain optional clauses only." An examination of these 37 
 show that 29 are indisputably open shop agreements. The great 
 majority of unions refuse to make any but closed shop ageements 
 and insist that they must follow this course or perish ; yet this 
 government document absolutely proves the falsity of their claim. 
 
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 4Q 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Collective Bargaining 
 
 The general attitude of the majority of open shop employers 
 towards collective bargaining is set forth in Chapter II. 
 
 At the 1919 convention of the National Association of. 
 Manufacturers the following report was presented By the 
 Sub-Committee on Cooperative Representation. This report 
 amply demonstrates that collective bargaining with one's own 
 employes, without outside interference or influence, is not at all 
 inconsistent with the open shop, 
 
 Cooperative Representation 
 
 Your Committee on Cooperative Representation, which may be denned 
 to be a method or plan by which employes shall deal collectively, through 
 representatives selected by them, with employers as to wages, conditions 
 of work, etc., reports as follows: 
 
 Such a plan of representation in establishments where the number of 
 employes is so great that individual contact by the employer with each 
 employe is impracticable, would appear to be a valuable and necessary 
 channel of communication between the employer and the employes, whereby 
 they may be able to avoid misunderstandings, to determine in a reason- 
 able manner upon modifications of wages or working conditions, and in 
 general to establish such friendly relationships as will be beneficial to the 
 interest of both the employer and the employes. 
 
 The various plans examined by your Committee differ only in minor 
 details, and a typical cooperative representation plan may be outlined 
 as follows: 
 
 i. Purposes 
 
 (a) To provide regular means of access by employes through the 
 representatives to the employer and for consultations by the employer with 
 employes through their representatives. 
 
 (b) To avoid interruption of production and to maintain maximum 
 production, 
 
 (c) To give employes an opportunity to discuss conditions under 
 which they work and the means of improvement. 
 
 (d) To further the common interest of the employes and the employer 
 in all matters pertaining to work, organization and efficiency. 
 
 2. Methods of Adoption 
 
 The employes to be invited to cooperate with the management by 
 electing from among their number by ballot representatives in whom they 
 have confidence, and through whom they may deal with the manage- 
 ment 
 
 The number of representatives to be not less than two of each section, 
 or one for each one hundred employes or more as may be determined. 
 Elections to be held semi-annually, the representatives to hold office for 
 one year, except that one-half of such representatives chosen at the first 
 
SO OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 election shall be retired by lot at the end of the first six months' period, 
 and their successors then elected. 
 
 Any representative may be recalled upon the written request of two- 
 thirds of the employes qualified to vote in his election. The office of a 
 representative shall become vacant upon termination of his employment, 
 or upon his appointment as department head, foreman or leading hand. 
 Vacancies shall be filled by special election for unexpired terms. 
 
 No department head, foreman or leading hand shall be entitled to 
 vote or be eligible for election as a representative. 
 
 There shall be no discrimination, either by employes or the employer, 
 because of creed, society, fraternity or labor organization. 
 
 3. Qualifications of Representatives and Voters 
 
 Only an employe who is an American citizen (or who has taken out 
 his first papers), who has been employed for six months and who is 
 twenty-one years of age or over may be a representative. All employes 
 who at the time of an election shall have been employed for three months 
 or more, and who are eighteen years of age or over, shall be entitled 
 to vote for Representatives. 
 
 4. Methods of Conducting Elections 
 
 Elections to be held within the works semi-annually at fixed dates, 
 and upon notice which shall be posted at least three days in advance of 
 the election. 
 
 Each employe to be given a ballot upon which to write or have written 
 the names of his choice of his fellow employes for representatives in 
 his section. The employes in each section to name one of their number 
 to act as teller, with whom representative of the company shall act 
 conjointly. The tellers shall have custody of the ballot box until the votes 
 are counted and results announced. 
 
 5. Industrial Representative 
 
 The employer shall appoint an industrial representative to facilitate 
 close relationship between the management and the employes' representa- 
 tives. He shall respond promptly to any request from the representatives 
 and may attend any meeting but shall have no vote. 
 
 6. Joint Committee 
 
 In a small plant committees may be appointed representing the entire 
 membership; in larger plants subdivision may be made and committees 
 appointed for each division. Each committee to consist of six persons, 
 three of whom shall be appointed by the employes' representatives, and 
 three by the management. 
 
 Committees shall meet regularly each month, and special meetings 
 may be called when necessary. 
 
 The time spent by employes' representatives at regular or special 
 meetings jointly by the members of the committees involved, shall be 
 paid for by the employer at regular rates. 
 
 The committees may be as follows : 
 
 1. Committee on Routine, Procedure and Elections. 
 
 2. Committee on Adjustment of Wages and Working Conditions. 
 
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 51 
 
 3. Committee on Safety. 
 
 4. Committee on Efficiency, Economy and Suggestions. 
 
 5. Committee on Health and Recreation. 
 
 6. Committee on Education. 
 
 Each committee to keep a record of its proceedings. 
 
 7. Procedure 
 
 Any matter requiring adjustment to be referred in the first instance 
 by the employe affected, with one of the representatives of his section, 
 to the foreman under whom the employe is engaged. If a decision is not 
 promptly reached the matter to be referred to the section superintendent, 
 and if he fails to make adjustment the matter is then referred to the 
 joint committee involved. Unanimous decision of the joint committee 
 shall be final. In case of failure to reach such decision, the questions 
 involved to be put in writing and submitted to the management for action. 
 
 8. Amendment 
 
 Any course of procedure herein provided may be amended by unani- 
 mous vote of the Committee on Routine, Procedure and Elections. 
 
 The foregoing is intended only to be an outline of a plan embodying 
 the principle of dealing with employes through representatives, details 
 of elections, elected by them and modification would be made of number 
 of representatives, details of elections, and number and duties of com- 
 mittees, etc., as in each case might seem desirable. 
 
 The Committee on Cooperative Representation Plans recommends 
 to your Committee that report be made to the Board of Directors favor- 
 ing such methods of dealing between employers and employes in large 
 establishments, believing that such plans will bring employer and employe 
 closer together, preventing misunderstandings with resulting irritation 
 and loss, and be constructively of benefit to both employer and employe. 
 
 Open Shop Collective Bargaining 
 
 Is there any method by which Collective Bargaining can 
 function under the open shop conditions? 
 
 We would call attention to the Monthly Labor Review of 
 August, 1918, beginning on page 180, which describes a collective 
 bargaining system which permits the employment of both union 
 and non-union workers. Summarizing the experience of the fac- 
 tory in which the system is analyzed, Dr. Emmet, the author, 
 says : "The three years operation of the plan has resulted in put- 
 ting on a collective basis, the wage bargaining of the establish- 
 ment, as well as hours of labor, discipline, discharges, and adjust- 
 ment of grievances." 
 
 The National Ind\]fitria 1 r ^"fprfnV? Board, in October, 1919, 
 issued a report entitled, "Works Councils in the United 
 States." Of eighty-one establishments from which information 
 was secured on trie particular point. sventy-pnereported that they 
 maintained open shops. The report as a wnole is an interesting 
 analysis of systems of collective or mutual bargaining between 
 the employes of an establishment and its management, which 
 
52 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 do not provide for recognition of the trade union. That is, they 
 do not grant the closed shop. 
 
 The Question of Size 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. James A. Emery, General Counsel 
 of the National Association of Manufacturers, before the Indus- 
 trial Relations Commission, April 8, 1914.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: From your study of this question of collective bar- 
 gaining and from the experience you have gained in your position as 
 counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers, do you believe 
 that an individual can fare as well with reference to his wages, hour or 
 labor, conditions of work, if he deals individually with the employer 
 as he would if he should deal collectively with him? 
 
 MR. EMERY : Generally speaking, it depends upon the quality and 
 character of the. employer and his size. To illustrate what I say, I 
 heard Mr. Gompers's very interesting illustration here, which he presented 
 with characteristic extremity. It is true, what he said, as to the indi- 
 vidual bargain with the United States Steel Corporation, but it is just like 
 talking about a plumber over on F Street here having a little shop 
 a smaller employer, who employs two or three men dealing with the 
 plumbers' union. The small employer is at the same disadvantage in deal- 
 ing with the union. I assume that if all the employers of men in this 
 country were taken together it would be found that the average employer 
 employs between five and ten men. I merely take those figures from 
 estimates that I have heard made by many manufacturers, both large 
 and small. While it seems quite true that the individual laborers would 
 be at a decided disadvantage in dealing with a large manufacturer, it 
 is equally true that the small employer is at a decided disadvantage 
 in dealing with a large union, and while it is true that the individual 
 wage earner may be both poor and somewhat weak, it is equally true 
 that collectively he is rich and powerful which is illustrated by the 
 influence exerted by many large labor organizations and by the very 
 fortunate conditions of their treasuries ; and it is equally true that there 
 are many employers of labor who are as much enmeshed by the situation 
 in which they made their contracts as any individual laborer could 
 be. Mr. Bradstreet tells us that about five per cent of the men who 
 engage in manufacturing industries succeed. The remainder fail. So 
 that the roadway of the manufacturer is by no means of high success 
 and certainty. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Emery, if it is true that the small employer 
 is in the aggregate the large employer of the country, and if it also is 
 true that the small is weak in dealing with the workingmen who are organ- 
 ized, then it would naturally follow, would it not, from the standpoint 
 of the workingman at least for him to deal collectively with the employer 
 would better his condition ? 
 
 MR. EMERY: Yes; in many cases. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: I mean as a general proposition? 
 
 MR. EMERY: Well, that is an abstract question that would have to 
 
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING S3 
 
 be divided probably into several considerations to admit of a positive 
 answer, a categorical answer, at least. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Would you mind dividing it? 
 
 MR. EMERY: Certainly. I think there is a great number of working- 
 men in this country, and the higher you go in the scale of efficiency 
 the more you find of them who dislike to surrender their earning power 
 to an organization that makes its bargain for them. I think your inquiry 
 is directed to this question, because the market for labor in skilled 
 trades, is always undersupplied. 
 
 So far as I know, the demand for men highly skilled, men capable 
 of filling the positions of foremen and superintendents I am speaking 
 of skilled labor is never satisfied, and I know personally from many 
 manufacturers that I have come into contact with that there is always 
 a pressing need and demand expressed for the higher forms of skill, 
 both the individual workmen and for those capable of being foremen 
 and for leadership and for constructive purposes, for the increase of 
 efficiency of the plant generally, because the intelligent employer realizes 
 that that is the way to secure efficiency in competition, not only within 
 the surroundings of our own nation, but over the face of the earth, and 
 that it is the efficient nation who owns the markets of the world. 
 So the desire of every employer is to cultivate by every means in his 
 power the efficiency of his men, and I think he realizes as keenly as 
 any element in our community possibly can the enormous opportunity 
 that good feeling between employer and employe has in producing neces- 
 sary condition of success. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Then, as I understand, if you were an employe 
 of the ordinary and usual industries of this country, looking for a job 
 and seeking to do the best for yourself that you could, you would be in 
 doubt as to whether it was advisable, in order to accomplish that pur- 
 pose, to join a union or to become organized or not? 
 
 MR. EMERY: It would not depend upon that consideration alone. 
 Peace for* myself and my family might induce me to do many things 
 that my industrial progress would require. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: But taking those conditions, without any other 
 considerations, that would be your idea? 
 
 MR. EMERY: It would depend upon the trade I belong to. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: I mean eliminating both the advantages and dis- 
 advantages that would come to you ? 
 
 MR. EMERY: Yes. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Eliminate the necessity of joining a union in order 
 to get a job. 
 
 MR. EMERY: Yes; and I think I would be supported in that opinion 
 by many, many millions of my intelligent and practical citizens. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: I take it that you mean a small percentage of the 
 workers are organized? 
 
 MR. EMERY: The percentage of unorganized is much greater than 
 organized and in view of the active missionary campaign of organized 
 labor there must be excellent reasons for so many remaining unorganized. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: That rather implies, I take it, that you consider 
 
54 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 the people unorganized here seriously considered the question of organiza- 
 tion and have the means of forming an organization, but, having that 
 door open to them, have decided that on the whole it is best not to do so ? 
 
 MR. EMERY : That is a conclusion I naturally form from the con- 
 ditions which I observe all about me. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Then we are to understand, as I said before, that 
 you have no opinion as to the merits or demerits of collective bargaining 
 from the standpoint of the employe, no general opinion? 
 
 MR. EMERY: On the contrary, if I were looking at the matter 
 from the standpoint of the employe, I see many advantages in collective 
 bargaining, a great many indeed, and I should certainly be guilty at least 
 of having suffered a miscarriage of interpretation if I permitted you to 
 believe that I was personally opposed to collective bargaining or that my 
 experience was against it or that I did not recognize it to be not 
 only of importance, but a very essential feature of our modern life in 
 many instances. 
 
 I would say that it is very difficult collective bargaining, without 
 referring to it with the approval or disapproval which I would give it 
 depends entirely upon the principles which underlie the proposal. If you 
 say, for instance, the form of collective bargaining that is presented in 
 what I regard the best statement ever made upon that subject, in the 
 report of the Anthracite Coal Commission of 1902, I would say not 
 only for myself, but the great body of- manufacturers I personally have 
 been in contact with, they accept practically almost unreservedly the 
 opinions there expressed and would indorse the form of collective bar- 
 gaining with the principles underlying it was so satisfactorily outlined 
 in that space. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Could you briefly state in your own language what 
 that form is and what are the commendable features of it which you 
 indorse? 
 
 Award of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission 
 
 MR. EMERY: The most important, to my mind, is that found under 
 the ninth finding of the commission. You 'will, of course, recollect that 
 both employers and employes were represented on this commission, unor- 
 ganized employers, I believe, and organized employes, in person by E. E. 
 Clark, now of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The most important 
 principle there is stated thus: 
 
 "It is adjudged and awarded that no person shall be refused employ- 
 ment, or in any way discriminated against on account of membership or 
 non-membership in any labor organization ; that there shall be no dis- 
 crimination against or interference with any employe who is not a member 
 of any labor organization by members of such organization." 
 
 I regard that as the most important, and a most fundamentally 
 important principle. Of course, there are no such questions arising here 
 as to the restriction of product or restriction of apprentices; no issues 
 of that character were presented 
 
 On the other hand, I should hesitate very much, it seems to me, 
 to engage in any collective bargaining in which this section was embraced 
 
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 55 
 
 as part of it, part of the governing law that was to rule. I read from 
 the constitution and by-laws of the Glass Bottle Blowers' Association. 
 This agreement covers the 1913-14 blast: 
 
 "A member who encourages or assists in any manner, either directly 
 or indirectly, any foreign glass blower to come to the country shall, 
 upon conviction, be fined not less than one hundred dollars and to be 
 suspended from work for one year." 
 
 "Clause 25. No foreign glass blower shall be admitted into the 
 association during the blast of- 1913-14. But the national president and 
 executive board shall have power to admit such when deemed necessary, 
 and initiation fee of five hundred dollars ($500) imposed." 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: What year is that? 
 
 MR. EMERY: 1913. The blast of 1913-14 is now in force. It would 
 seem to me, since you have asked me as an employe, that I should some- 
 what hesitate to become a member of the typographical union if I were 
 required to take this obligation, part of which reads as follows: "That 
 my fidelity to the union and my duty to the members thereof shall be in 
 no sense interfered with by any allegiance that I may now or may here- 
 after owe to any other organization, social, political or religious, secret 
 or otherwise." 
 
 I am reading article 12, section i. That complete clause is part of 
 the common obligation given to members. 
 
 I simply speak of this to illustrate my answer to your inquiry as to 
 whether I would be a member of this or that organization, and I would 
 say that it depends entirely on the conditions attached to the membership, 
 and to the prospect of employment. I would not be misunderstood for a 
 minute in either questioning the necessity, propriety, and the enormous 
 social and individual value of the organization of the workingman. What 
 I discuss now, when you ask that question, is perhaps a criticism of 
 features of it which seem to be intertwined with the movement among 
 organizations, which seems to me subject for a proper criticism. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Let me see if I can state your position, as I get 
 it at least, that where the making of a collective bargain with the 
 employer automatically incorporated into that agreement detrimental 
 conditions or clauses such as those you have named, naturally being in 
 your opinion a bad agreement, you would not make it? 
 
 MR. EMERY: No. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : But that if an agreement to be made between 
 the parties had no detrimental features such as those you have named, 
 or anything similar, you would then believe in collective bargaining ? 
 
 MR. EMERY : When you say "detrimental," that may either be a ques- 
 tion of principle or of policy. A question of policy, of course, can be 
 readily corrected by change; a question of principle, of course 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : I am trying to first get at the pure question as 
 to whether, from the standpoint of the employer, or the standpoint 
 of the employe, collective bargaining is a good proposition to go on. 
 
 MR. EMERY : Yes. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Then, we can eliminate from that such cases of col- 
 
56 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 lective bargaining that we would not agree to. Do you believe in a general 
 principle of collective bargaining between employer and employe? 
 
 MR. EMERY: Yes; I think it an excellent thing in many cases. I 
 think the smaller the employer the more difficult position he is in, and 
 the larger the employer the more difficult position the individual employe 
 would be without it. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : You have read from the glass blowers' constitution 
 and by-laws. What has the introduction of a man in the glass blowers' 
 trade, which has made that more or less an automatic proposition, had 
 to do or, change the form of the question. It is possible that the 
 introduction of such a man had the effect of throwing or tending to 
 throw a great many men out of employment in the glass blowers' trade? 
 
 MR. EMERY: Yes; I have heard that. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Men who have heretofore been recognized as 
 highly skilled men and who have devoted their lives to learning their 
 trade and becoming skilled at it; that therefore under such conditions 
 it was necessary for the union men to protect the livelihood of them- 
 selves and their families by introducing just such clauses in the by-laws 
 so as to take into consideration the introduction of such a machine to the 
 world all at once would seem like restrictive conditions which were 
 unbearable and unjust; if the introduction of those clauses was caused 
 by the introduction of such a machine, would that mitigate your view 
 of such clauses? 
 
 MR. EMERY: It would not mitigate the condition of a person who 
 did not happen to be a member of the union, and was equally under 
 the necessity of supporting his wife and children. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Do you know of any union in which the system 
 of collective bargaining which you commend has been enforced? 
 
 MR. EMERY : You mean in which the right of non-members of the 
 organization to belong is recognized? 
 
 MR THOMPSON: Yes. 
 
 Collective Bargaining But Open Shop 
 
 MR. EMERY: A great many. Brotherhoods are, of course, the most 
 striking examples, and there are many others. For instance, the street 
 railways of Boston have just entered into arrangements, or have just 
 made a collective bargain with the Amalgamated Association of Street 
 Railway Employes, which is a member of the American Federation of 
 Labor. The first clause in that collective agreement provides practically 
 for a principle that is here recognized in the Anthracite Coal Strike 
 Commission, and, of course, when I read you from that, I brought to 
 your attention by that fact an agreement entered into which covered all 
 the coal miners whom Mr. Mitchell so ably represented here the other 
 day. 
 
 That principle is still recognized, although I heard Mr. Mitchell say 
 the other day that a man was expected automatically to become a member 
 of the union. The Amalgamated Association of Street Railway Men 
 has just made this arrangement with the Boston Elevated, and the first 
 provision of the agreement recognized that condition. I have here a num- 
 
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 57 
 
 ber of agreements with stationary engineers in which that arrangement 
 was made, and I know the members of our own association, quite a few 
 of them, who have collective bargains in which they decline to exclu- 
 sively employ the members of the union with which they deal, but in 
 other respects recognize them as to hours, wages, and working conditions, 
 and deal with their representatives, and in all respects treat them as the 
 agents or authorized representatives of the men, but not as the exclusive 
 source for their labor supply. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : In referring to the question of collective bargain- 
 ing, I have not necessarily inferred that it must be with the union. 
 
 MR. EMERY: Sir? 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: In considering the question of collective bargain- 
 ing, I have not implied that it must necessarily be with organized trade 
 or craft, but rather, as a whole of the employes of the factory or employes 
 generally in a line of industry; following that out, however, and your 
 answer 
 
 MR. EMERY: Your question, if you will pardon me, was, of course, 
 whether or not I knew any organization maintaining collective bargaining 
 of the type to which I have alluded. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Following out the last answer which you gave, or 
 at least apropos of it, if you were a miner working in the anthracite 
 coal region, would you be inclined to join the union because of benefits 
 you might thereby derive I do not mean to escape violence, but for the 
 benefits you might derive, would you be apt to become a member of the 
 union? 
 
 MR. EMERY: Yes; I might. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : If you were a trainman, Mr. Emery, on some of the 
 railroads where there are brotherhoods, the brotherhoods you spoke of, 
 would you be inclined to join those organizations and deal collectively 
 with the railroad company, or would you be inclined to remain an indi- 
 vidual and deal individually? 
 
 MR. EMERY: It is very difficult to answer that question from my 
 standpoint. I might and I might not, according to the circumstances. 
 I would take complete personal responsibility for what I did. I could 
 answer you very fully, in the terms of the Anthracite Coal Strike Com- 
 mission if you would like to hear it. They answered that question very 
 completely and I think very satisfactorily, and that report was signed 
 by Mr. Clark. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : I will be pleased to have it. 
 
 MR. EMERY: (reading): 
 
 "The union must not undertake to assume or to interfere with 
 the management of the business of the employer. It should strive to make 
 membership in it so valuable as to attract all who are eligible, but in 
 its efforts to build itself up it must not lose sight of the fact that those 
 who may think differently have certain rights guaranteed them by our 
 free government. However irritating it may be to see a man enjoy bene- 
 fits to the securing of which he refuses to contribute, either morally or 
 physically or financially, the fact that he has a right to dispose of his per- 
 sonal services as he chooses can not be ignored. The non-union man 
 
58 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 assumes the whole responsibility which results from being such, but his 
 right and privilege of being a non-union man are sanctioned in law and 
 morals. The rights and privileges of non-union men are as sacred to them 
 as the rights and privileges of unionists. The contention that a majority 
 of the employes in an industry, by voluntarily associating themselves in 
 a union, acquire authority over those who do not associate themselves 
 is untenable." 
 
 Of course, your inquiry is naturally predicated upon the assumption 
 implied behind your question that I might find it valuable to join the 
 union. I might and I might not. I should insist upon the recognition 
 of my right to pursue my own happiness and to make my living for 
 myself and family in either case as I saw best, and I regard that as a 
 most fundamental principle in this whole controversy. 
 
 A Common Misconception of Employment Relations 
 
 (From an address of James A. Emery, General Counsel 
 for the National Association of Manufacturers, before the Chi- 
 cago Association of Commerce, February 2, 1921.) 
 
 But the common misconception of the conditions of the general em- 
 ployment relation in industry in the United States have prevailed rather 
 than the true one. One of the common misconcepts at the bottom of the 
 discussion, whenever you start it, is that you have before you the spectacle 
 of a very large employer, on the one hand, who employs thousands of men, 
 and, on the other, thousands of men who have no individual opportunity 
 to meet with that employer or to know him except through the non-com- 
 missioned officers of his vast army. 
 
 Is that generally true of American industry? Why, gentlemen, let me 
 tell you that the next census of the United States that shortly will be 
 published will show in the neighborhood of 300,000 manufacturing estab- 
 lishments in the United States. They will show an average employment 
 per establishment in the neighborhood of 25 persons, and they will show 
 that 98 per cent of all those establishments and of the great volume of 
 industrial production in the United States takes place in plants that employ 
 two hundred and fifty persons or less, and that only one-fifth of one per 
 cent of American industrial establishments employ more than one thou- 
 sand people. 
 
 Shows It Is Not True 
 
 So it is not true that you have only great groups of employes operating 
 under a single employer. You have in the great aggregate of production 
 a condition in which it is not difficult for management that desires to do so 
 to maintain individual relationships with its employes either directly or 
 through trained conduits that translate its policy, if it has one. 
 
 Let us understand clearly that in the employment relation there is no 
 denying that personal relationship betwen employer and employe is the 
 most desirable relationship and that the ability to maintain it is one of the 
 severest as it is the truest tests of management, and to-day to all his other 
 competition the manager has added the necessity of competing with an 
 
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 59 
 
 organized interest to demonstrate to his men that he can do more for them 
 through intelligent direction and sympathy than an outside interest can. 
 
 In a world in which in places and times large groups of men are 
 brought together under a common management there should be, if the 
 parties desire it and the circumstances suggest that it is the best way of con- 
 ducting their relation for the achievement of their task and service to the 
 public interest, that they should collectively agree together, but I resent 
 and I reject the attempt to assert that a collective bargain can only be 
 made with one particular kind of a collective organization. 
 
 Rock That Broke Conference 
 
 The president's first industrial conference broke on that rock because 
 the labor organizations undertook to define collective bargaining as deal- 
 ing with a labor organization through its chosen representatives and the 
 employers insisted that a collective agreement was one that was made by 
 an individual or groups of individuals with other groups upon such condi- 
 tions as they jointly determine to be agreeable. 
 
 Collective bargaining in its broadest sense can only be an agreement 
 between an individual or groups of employers and a particular group or 
 groups of working men. It may be a shop council, it may be a works 
 council, it may be any kind of an agreement within the plant that brings 
 men together in groups, but it cannot mean and it cannot be construed to 
 mean under institutions like ours nor under industrial conditions such as 
 exist in America, an exclusive dealing with one kind of an organization. 
 It was reported back by the chairman of the public group in the employers' 
 conference at that time that the leading representatives of the labor 
 organizations insisted upon their definition because they insisted that this 
 conference must go out to the United States with a declaration that there 
 was no kind of collective bargaining recognized except dealing with a 
 labor organization. 
 
 Should Wages Be Based on Time or Production? 
 
 (From Pamphlet No. 3, March i, 1920, of the Associated 
 Industries of Tacoma. This, and the following statement, voice 
 the views of representative employers' organizations.) 
 
 Collective bargaining in the sense applied and so loudly demanded by 
 the leaders of organized labor, is an ill defined term, according to A. L. 
 DeLeeuw, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, who points 
 out that there is at present no equitable way of determining wages, and 
 as a result that there is no possibility of collective bargaining. 
 
 Wages at the present time are paid for time given, whereas they 
 should be paid for work produced. Employers alone cannot correct this 
 condition, but employers and labor together, assisted by qualified engi- 
 neers, might go far in adjusting this unsatisfactory condition of wage 
 payment, he maintains. 
 
 Thus, far, he continues, collective bargaining has been collective, it 
 must be admitted, but it has not been bargaining. In collective bargain- 
 ing it is supposed that some or all of the employes have delegated the 
 
60 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 right to bargain for them to some attorney or business agent. In 
 practically all cases this business agent is their union, and this union, 
 according to the term used, is supposed to bargain with the employer. 
 As a matter of fact, however, there is no bargaining and under the present 
 conditions there can be no bargaining. The issue has been brought to a 
 conclusion by strikes or threats of strikes which is no more a method 
 of bargaining than when a man points a gun at his debtor to collect a 
 bill. The fact that the bill may be due to him, and even overdue, does 
 not make this a method of bargaining. 
 
 Furthermore, is such "collective bargaining" bargaining by all the 
 employes, or is it bargaining for a group or a part of a group? If it is 
 bargaining by a union acting for a group should the representative, the 
 business agent, show credentials before the bargaining starts? Such a 
 course of action might reveal the weakness of the union, but would prob- 
 ably be for the best interests of the third party, the general public. 
 
 Dealing Through Third Parties 
 
 ("Collective Bargaining" as explained in The Open Shop, 
 published by the Business Men's Association of Omaha, March I, 
 1920.) 
 
 What is meant by "collective bargaining?" 
 
 Many people believe that it means bargaining between an employer 
 and his employes, as a group, as distinguished from that dealing in which 
 he would meet each particular individual on an individual basis. That was 
 the definition which many people had in mind when they read that em- 
 ployers in the president's first industrial conference were accused by 
 labor unions of refusing to concede "collective bargaining." On that 
 basis many thought the employer wrong. 
 
 But', however willing union labor leaders may be to let the public 
 think that this is what it means by "collective bargaining" it insists upon 
 a very different meaning of the phrase when it comes to deal with em- 
 ployers. The real definition of "collective bargaining," as union labor 
 leaders seek to practice it is stated succinctly by W. Jett Lauck, counsel 
 for the Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway Em- 
 ployes, who says: 
 
 "The time has passed when collective bargaining can or should be 
 interpreted in any other way than as to mean the recognition of trade 
 unions or labor organizations. As urged by employes, it means union 
 recognition. This does not necessarily mean the adoption of the 'closed 
 shop,' but does mean that the street railway managements shall conduct 
 all negotiations as to wages, working conditions and relations with a 
 recognized labor organization." 
 
 And "a recognized labor organization" means a labor union affiliated 
 with the American Federation of Labor. 
 
 This is the UNION definition of "collective bargaining." It does not 
 mean collective bargaining by all the employes of a shop or a single 
 employer. It does not mean direct dealing between employer and 
 workmen "in the family." It means dealing through a third party 
 
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 61 
 
 the union, the union business agent or imported international officer from 
 Chicago or Indianapolis or New York, who makes his living by managing 
 strikes and adjusting disputes (the more strike the more management to 
 be done; the more disputes the more adjustment to be undertaken.)" 
 
 Mr. Lauck insists that this UNION bargaining does not "necessarily" 
 mean a "closed shop." But, if "all negotiations as to wages, working 
 conditions and relations" must be through dealing with the union business 
 agent, what voice has the non-union employe? Experience shows that 
 when the union once becomes the ONLY medium through which employer 
 and employe can talk to each other, the "closed shop" follows with cer- 
 tainty. 
 
 The Truth About the President's Conference 
 
 (From an article, "The Menace of the Closed Shop," by 
 Judge Elbert H. Gary, Chairman of the United States Steel 
 Corporation, published in American Industries, January, 1920. 
 This is'an answer to claims that ehiployers at the conference called 
 by President Wilson refused, to accept "collective bargaining.") 
 Without discussing for the present the* merit or demerit of labor 
 unions it may be observed that union labor leaders openly state that 
 they seek to unionize, or, as they say, "organize" the whole industry of 
 this country. Those who do not contract or deal with unions although 
 they do not combat them, insist upon absolute freedom to both employer 
 and employe in regard to employment and the management of the shops. 
 The non-union employers and employes both stand for the open shop. 
 The unions argue for the closed shop or as the leaders now insist, "the 
 right of collective bargaining through labor union leaders." 
 
 i Every proposition contended for by the labor unions at the National 
 Industrial Conference at Washington led to the domination of the shops' 
 and of the men by the union labor leaders. Every position taken by 
 the other side centered on the open shop. This is the great question con 
 fronting the American people and, in fact, the world public. From 80^ 
 ner cent to on per rent nr more of labor in this country is nnn-^pn. It 
 is for them and the employers generally and the large class of men and 
 women who are not, strictly speaking, employers or wage earners, to 
 determine whether or not it is best for the whole community to have 
 industry totally organized^ Judging by experience, we believe it is for 
 the best interest of the employer and employe and the general public to 
 have a business conducted on the basis of what we term the "open shop/' 
 thus permitting any man to engage in any line of employment, or any 
 employer to secure the services of any workman on terms agreed upon 
 between the two, whether the workman is or is not connected with a labor 
 union. The people at large will finally decide this question, and the deci- 
 sion will be right. 
 
 I think the fundamental question submitted to the conference for 
 recommendation to industries was the open shop; that question apparently 
 could not be decided by majority vote for the reason that the conference 
 
6*2 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 was organized into three groups called Labor, Employers and Public. No 
 affirmative action under the constitution or adopted rules could be taken 
 except by the unanimous vote of the three groups, each of which voted 
 by a majority of all its members. It was necessary to have such a 
 condition as otherwise there could be no conference in which there would 
 be an agreement between capital and labor, so-called. 
 
 The union labor advocates stand for collective bargaining through 
 the unions. The others favor collective bargaining through representa- 
 tives selected by the employes themselves from their own numbers. 
 
 All through the conference whenever the question of collective bar- 
 gaining was discussed, it was apparent that the union labor leaders would 
 not support any resolution in favor of collective bargaining except on the 
 basis that collective bargaining meant bargaining through union labor 
 unions. 
 
 The unions claim that collective bargaining through different forms 
 of shop organization made up of the employes tends to limit the exten- 
 sion of unions by increasing their numbers. The non-union employes and 
 their employers insist that collective bargaining through labor union 
 means that employes are forced to' join the unions, as otherwise they 
 could not be represented. So it is perfectly clear that the whole argu- 
 ment returns to the main proposition of open or closed shop. 
 
 In the conference there was no objection offered by any one to a form 
 of collective bargaining as between employes and employers; provided 
 both were free from outside representation and direction. 
 
 The labor group, so-called, was made up of union labor leaders, leav- 
 ing unorganized labor without special representation. The same mistake 
 seems to have been made by a large portion of the public which was 
 made throughout the war, namely that organized labor really represents 
 the workmen or wage earners, notwithstanding, as a matter of fact, at 
 least 85 per cent are non-union not members of any union organization. 
 The employers' group, in which were men first-class in every respect, 
 included men connected with large and important lines of industry, and 
 also included several others, some of whom at least should have been 
 with the labor group. In selecting the public group there were over- 
 looked thousands of vocations, professions, artisans, and other lines of 
 industry, all of which are more or less affected by the cost of production, 
 the expense of living, and, therefore, the control and conditions of both 
 labor and capital. 
 
 However, it would seem there were many objects which might appro- 
 priately have been considered by the conference and conclusions for recom- 
 mendations arrived at by unanimous consent which would be advantageous 
 to the public good ; and, therefore, to all mankind, such conditions, women's 
 work, child labor, recreation, medical and surgical treatment, pensions, 
 relief in times of stress, and other educational facilities. With the right 
 disposition and intelligence the public group, sole survivor of the confer- 
 ence, can agree upon recommendation to the industrial world which should 
 be of substantial benefit. All of us are in favor of these principles and of 
 any others that may be suggested which we believe will be of real benefit to 
 the wage earners and to the general public. 
 
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 63 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. H. W. Dennett, former organizer 
 for the International Typographical Union, before the Industrial 
 Relations Commission, September 14, 1914. Page 5,780 of the 
 record. Mr. Dennett bears out Judge Gary's argument, that the 
 collective bargaining the unions now demand means the closed 
 shop.) 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : In speaking of arbitration, following what you 
 said about arbitration, would you be willing to arbitrate the question of 
 the closed shop; that is, whether you would have the closed shop or not? 
 
 MR. DENNETT: I would not. 
 
 Collective Dealing in the Plant 
 
 (From testimony before the Industrial Relations Commis- 
 sion, April 8, 1914, of Mr. Earl Dean Howard, Professor of 
 Economics at Northwestern University, and manager of the labor 
 department, Hart, Schaffner and Marx, Chicago. Pages 571 and 
 573 - of the record. Professor Howard shows the possibility 
 of collective bargaining by a plant's workers.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Prof. Howard, I understand you have prepared cer- 
 tain information in regard to the working out of the trade agreement at 
 Hart, Schaffner's & Marx's. I will ask you if you have that in shape to 
 present to the commission in written form, in order that we may save the 
 time of going into it. I will direct your attention to the question of col- 
 lective bargaining, conciliation, and arbitration as it works out there, and 
 your opinion in regard thereto. First, I will ask, from your experience 
 do you believe that collective bargaining is the proper way of dealing 
 between a firm and its employes, and why? 
 
 MR. HOWARD: I undoubtedly believe it is. I believe it is the only 
 possible foundation for an experiment such as we have had. That does 
 not necessarily mean, however, that the employes must be represented by 
 a national union or any kind of a union. We have been particularly 
 fortunate in having our own employes in a rather autonomous -organiza- 
 tion, very little influenced by outside organizations. I think there has 
 been quite a factor in progressing in the experiment, because they were 
 rather free to adopt policies with those of the board of arbitration. But 
 it is necessary in any experiment of this kind where the employes must 
 be represented or at least their opinions must be known and given ex- 
 pression to, that they have their representatives and they be able to choose 
 in some way, so that they will be properly representative. That implies, 
 I think, some organization, and, of course, the dealing with the employes 
 directly in any form whatsoever implies collective bargaining, especially 
 with reference to wages. 
 
 MR. BARNETT: You stated at the beginning of your testimony that 
 the organization of the employes in Hart, Schaffner & Marx was autono- 
 mous these employes organized in local unions of the United Garment 
 Workers. 
 
 MR. HOWARD: Yes. 
 
64 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 MR. BARNETT: Are these local unions practically composed exclu- 
 sively of employes of Hart, Schaffner & Marx, or are there other employes 
 of other firms included in their membership? 
 
 MR. HOWARD : Not exclusively. Simply because there is not enough 
 people employed by other firms to organize a local they take them in, but 
 they have very little, because there is a little problem now developing on 
 that account; but the principle to decide, after all, is so small that it does 
 not make much difference, and I think that it will gradually work out that 
 the unions will consist only of Hart, Schaffner & Marx employes. I hope 
 to see it that way. Of course, I cannot determine their policy. 
 
 "Recognition of the Union" 
 
 (From Open Shop Bulletin No. 4. Should employers 
 "recognize the unions" ?) 
 
 It has been declared that employers should negotiate with 
 the unions; "recognition of the unions should be given." 
 
 Authors of such statements should know that with a very 
 few exceptions all labor unions at present insist that every agree- 
 ment made must contain a provision for the closed shop; they 
 must know that it is against union principles to arbitrate the ques- 
 tion of the closed shop. 
 
 Unionists themselves admit that "recognition of the unions" 
 is equivalent to the closed shop. Thus, Helen Marot, formerly 
 executive secretary of the Women's Trade Union League of 
 New York, in her book "American Labor Unions," says on page 
 120: "A union shop, called outside of union circles a 'closed 
 shop/ that is, a shop where the owner has agreed to employ 
 only members of a union, and union recognition, or the agree- 
 ment by the employer to deal with representatives of the union, 
 instead of with his employes individually as to this or that con- 
 dition of employment, are both demands that follow logically the 
 program of the American Federation." The two recognition 
 and closed shop are coupled together. 
 
 Dr. Frank T. Stockton in his book, "the Closed Shop in 
 American Trade Unions" (page 126, italics ours) says: 
 
 "The method ordinarily employed of unionizing a shop is to bring 
 into membership as many of the men as possible, and then to demand of 
 the employer that he recognize the union and agree thereafter to employ 
 only union members." 
 
 Do we want "recognition of unions" which compels the manu- 
 facturer to "employ only union members?" 
 
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 65 
 
 "Recognition" Means "Closing" 
 
 (From "The Closed Shop vs. The Open Shop," a monograph 
 by Ernest F. Lloyd, published July, 1920, by the National Indus- 
 trial Conference Board. "Recognition" means "Closing.") 
 
 The power universally recognized as residing in monopoly and the 
 condition of irresponsibility which we have seen pertains in labor organ- 
 izations, combine to cause a constant effort by union leaders to "cloe" 
 the shops under their influence. The extent to which this effort is 
 successful is the extent to which the union is "recognized," and measures 
 the degree to which an extra-legal or irresponsible power is introduced 
 into the management of the shop. We are not here concerned with the 
 desirability or undesirability of any practice or conduct which may be 
 sought or agreed upon, but only with the fact of its irresponsible source. 
 Then open shop does not therefore preclude the making of arrangements 
 with its workers as a group. Nor does it preclude conference with union 
 representatives nor the putting into effect of the results of such con- 
 ferences. But it does distinctly maintain the right to employ any person 
 regardless of his personal affiliations, and that any understanding or 
 agreement shall apply equally to all its workers affected. And commonly 
 it will not permit union propaganda in working hours. 
 
 Are Employers Just in Refusing Recognition? 
 
 (From "Labor in Politics," by Charles Norman Fay. Pages 
 152-154. Mr. Fay here answers the claim that employers who 
 refuse to "recognize the unions" are being unjust to the workers.) 
 
 While discussing Organized Labor's catch phrases, it would be well 
 to clarify our ideas a little on the meaning of two of them, which are 
 generally misunderstood by thousands of men and women of heart and 
 conscience, especially by the clergy, to wit: "Recognition of the Union," 
 and the "Closed Shop." The union leaders sometimes call the latter 
 the "Free Shop" free of non-union labor, that is. 
 
 An association of clergymen, the Inter-Church Industrial Confer- 
 ence (the name may be incorrect), whose secretary is a Dr. Poling, has 
 just formulated a report on industrial relations and remedies that sug- 
 gests at first the utterance of an official of an imaginary clergyman's 
 union affiliated with the Federation of Labor. Its perfectly innocent 
 acceptance of the slogans and economics of trades-unionism, of the vil- 
 lainy and greed of capital, and the righteousness of Organized Labor, 
 saddens a man who, like myself, is a descendent of a long line of clergy- 
 men, and a sincere believer in them, their lives and their work. The 
 Parable of the Unjust Steward says truly enough that "the children of 
 this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light" 
 Fortunately for the latter and for all of us, they can and do depend 
 upon the conscience and the constant material support of the very 
 >: men whom they so fluently condemn, for the safe existence of their 
 churches and their noble charities. But they certainly do not compre- 
 hend the practical game played by "Labor." 
 
 "Recognition of the Union" means to many good Christians something 
 like good manners, or human courtesy, to working-men; and refusal to 
 
66 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 "recognize" is stigmatized as autocratic hauteur, as contemptuous disre- 
 gard of the "aspirations of labor." It is nothing of the kind. "Recognition 
 of organized labor" and the "closed shop" are identical, and mean that 
 the employer enters regularly into contract with the unions through 
 their officials, usually in writing, which binds the former to employ 
 labor only through the latter, and to close the shop to the non-union man. 
 No matter how badly a non-union man needs work, or how good a 
 workman he is, or how much the employer wants to hire him, he can 
 get employment in that shop only by first joining the local union of his 
 craft, signing its constitution, submitting to the authority of its officers, 
 and most important of all, paying the initiation fee and dues involved. 
 Then only a union card is issued to him, and he can get a job in a 
 closed shop. 
 
 Many thousands of laboring men prefer their independence and 
 refuse to be held up for union dues. Many hundreds of employers, 
 though the majority are indifferent, refuse to contract for the closed 
 shop,' some as a mere matter of business policy, but many more, in my 
 observation, because they refuse to betray the constitutional right of every 
 man, employer or laborer to hire or work without the dictation of any 
 other man or group of men. One of the largest employers in Boston 
 lately said to me that he would lose every dollar he had invested, and 
 if necessary would die for the "open shop," as a true American. He 
 employs thousands of men without regard to union or non-union mem- 
 bership. My own feeling was just the same when I was an employer, 
 that I would never be party to taking advantage of the necessity of a 
 workingman, to compel him to pay tribute to a union, in order to qualify 
 for employment in my shop. I have shown elsewhere how in the course 
 of a strike in my own factory we discovered a strong preference among 
 workers in Chicago for the strictly non-union shop. The sentiment for 
 liberty prevailed. 
 
 Nevertheless, if it is after all a matter of business interest to close 
 his shop to non-union labor, or to union labor or to maintain an open 
 shop to both, he has an absolute right to do so, and to put sentiment 
 aside. I cannot believe, however, that any intelligent and conscientious 
 clergyman, who ought by virtue of his profession to put sentiment ahead 
 of business considerations, would, if he understood the matter, favor 
 forcing the free workman against his will to wear the collar or pay the 
 tribute decreed for him by the local union. Our courts of highest resort 
 have uniformly restrained the attempt to monopolize labor by virtue of 
 "collective bargaining" and the "closed shop," as an invasion of consti- 
 tutional right. I am glad to accept Judge Gary's maintenance of the open 
 shop in the great steel industry, as dictated by love of American freedom 
 as well as sound business judgment. I would urge the pulpit not ignor- 
 antly to condemn the law and the bench, but to study with open mind 
 as well as open heart the intent and the result of bringing all industry 
 within the grasp of a labor autocracy, the dream of Organized Labor. 
 
 (Testimony before, the Industrial Relations Commission, 
 April 7, 1914, of Mr. Joseph F. Valentine, president of the Inter- 
 
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 67 
 
 national Moulders' Union. Do the closed shop unions make 
 "requests" or "demands"?) 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: Mr. Briggs also made the further state- 
 ment that the unions do not come to the employer in a concilatory spirit, 
 but they come demanding limitations of apprentices, non-introduction of 
 machinery, closed shop, etc. Will you be good enough to make answer to 
 that? 
 
 MR.- VALENTINE : We may have made demands upon the foundrymen 
 for increases of wages and other things. Some people call them demands, 
 and some of them call them requests. I think Mr. Briggs is right when 
 he used the word "demand," because that is what it means. 
 
 Bargain or Dictate? 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Grant Fee, President of the San 
 Francisco Building Trades Employers Association, before the 
 Industrial Relations Commis'sion, September i, 1914. Mr. Fee 
 argues that collective bargaining as the closed shoppers wish it is 
 collective dictation.) 
 
 There is no collective bargaining in this city, as I understand the 
 term. The system in vogue in this city is : The unions pass a so-called 
 law raising the scale of wages or changing the working conditions; that 
 is referred to the building trades council for their approval; if approved 
 by the building trades council, it is put in force; sometimes notice is 
 given and again no notice is given in spite of the fact that the building 
 trades council say that one of their laws is that a ninety-days' notice 
 must be given before a change in wage or working conditions is put into 
 effect. The employer has no voice whatever in making the above-stated 
 rules; the employer's part consists entirely in making what resistance 
 he can; this resistance has met with no degree of success, excepting 
 cases of housesmiths' trouble in the matter of eight-hour day in structural 
 shops. Collective bargaining, as I understand the term, presumes discus- 
 sion and consultation by the parties concerned before agreements are 
 made. Here there is no such discussion. The so-called agreement is 
 the ultimatium of one party which the other party has no choice but to 
 accept. 
 
 Individual Bargaining 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Alba B. Johnson, President of the 
 Baldwin Locomotive Works, before the Industrial Relations Com- 
 mission, June 24, 1914. Pages 2,833 an ^ 2*834 of the record. 
 Mr. Johnson may be said to express the views of some employers 
 who oppose collective bargaining. His opposition is based upon 
 the restrictive practice of the closed shop unions.) 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK: Well, if I were to make application 
 at your works then, you would make the bargain with me individually? 
 
68 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir; individually. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK : And you would pay me what you 
 think I am worth. 
 
 MiR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. . . 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK: So that would be an individual bar- 
 gain. Now, I take it from your testimony that you think you can get 
 the best results from individual bargaining? 
 
 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK : Rather than from collective bargain- 
 ing? 
 
 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK: That is, you say that you think it 
 is the wisest course so far as your industry is concerned, not to recog- 
 nize or to deal with organized labor? 
 
 MR. JOHNSON: That is a fact. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK: Doubtless you have reached that 
 conclusion as the result of careful thought and consideration and the 
 commission would be very glad to know, Mr. Johnson, what were the 
 reasons that have led you to reach the conclusion that it was not wise 
 for you to do collective bargaining and to recognize organized labor 
 and to deal with organized labor. 
 
 MR. JOHNSON : We believe that organized labor levels downward. 
 We believe that it deprives the earnest, ambitious boy of a chance to 
 rise out of his position. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK: In other words, you think it makes 
 for the dead level? 
 
 MR. JOHNSON : I think it makes for the dead level and we think 
 that it destroys ambition and initiative. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK: For that reason primarily, and per- 
 haps there are other reasons that you may want to suggest. 
 
 MR. JOHNSON: We believe that it is impossible in a unionized shop, 
 in a shop having organized labor^ to reach the efficiency which is possi- 
 ble under non-union labor; that is, where the employer is free to deal 
 with each employe individual bargaining. 
 
 ACTING. CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK: And sp you operate what I presume 
 is generally called an open shop? 
 
 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK : Now, if I should come to your 
 works wearing a union button, how would that affect my chances of 
 getting a job if I was fit otherwise? 
 
 MR. JOHNSON : It would not affect it at all. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK: It would not? 
 
 MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK : You don't discriminate because I 
 happen to be a union man? 
 
 MR. JoHNsqN : No ; but after you were employed we then found 
 you were inefficient, you would not stay. 
 
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 69 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK: But so far as you know, Mr. John- 
 son, the question of unionism is not an issue in the matter of employment? 
 
 MR. JOHNSON: The question of unionism is not an issue. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK: You employ men on their merits 
 regardless of whether or not they are unionists? 
 
 MR. JOHNSON : Yes, sir. 
 
70 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 Irresponsibility of Unions 
 
 One of the objections employers have to the closed shop is 
 that it asks them to make agreements with organizations which 
 are not financially responsible for the aggreements they sign. 
 
 The union is in the great majority of states in no way financi- 
 ally responsible, as an organization, for damages it may cause in 
 any controversy. It may have hundreds of thousands of dollars 
 in the union treasury, but these funds may not be seiz'ed to pay 
 for damages caused by the acts of the union. Their official acts 
 carry no official financial risk. The employer who can be sued 
 in the courts, and who is financially responsible is asked to make 
 a binding agreement with an organization which cannot be sued 
 and which is not financially responsible. 
 
 This absence of all financial responsibility means that there 
 is no way by which contracts with the unions may be enforced. 
 If labor unions demand the right to bargain collectively and to 
 make contracts with employers, they should be held to the observ- 
 ance of their contracts just as strictly as any business man. The 
 very absence of power to enforce the contracts means that the 
 unions will not be so scrupulous about keeping them. This, of 
 course is not true of all unions and all union members, but during 
 the past few years union leaders who wished to abide by the 
 contracts have been termed "old fogies" and their advice has 
 been disregarded. Witness the longshoremen and printing strikes 
 in New York City. Likewise the "outlaw" railroad strike which 
 paralyzed transportation for a considerable period. It is esti- 
 mated that 173,000,000 bushels of grain were held on the farms 
 and in country and terminal elevators in the Northwest, unable 
 to be shipped to market because of the railroad tie-up. The 
 farmer was unable to ship millions of dollars of livestock. These 
 things help explain why the National Grange now endorses the 
 Open Shop. 
 
 Although the Executive Board of the Iron Workers' Union 
 used the funds of that union to carry on a campaign of dynamite, 
 none of the injured contractors could recover damages from the 
 union treasury. 
 
 Just one instance more. The United Mine Workers of 
 America attempted to unionize the coal mines of Arkansas. As 
 a result damages which their own papers estimated at from 
 
IRRESPONSIBILITY OF UNIONS 71 
 
 $200,000 to $500,000 were caused. The United Mine Workers 
 was sued in the courts ; practically its sole defense was that since 
 it is unincorporated it is beyond the reach of the law. This case, 
 known as the Coronado case, is now pending for final decision 
 before the United States Supreme Court; it is claimed its vast 
 funds cannot be made to pay for the damages caused, solely 
 because the Union has not chosen to incorporate. 
 
 No Restraints Imposed on Labor Combinations 
 Mr. James A. Emery; counsel for the National Association 
 of Manufacturers, addressed the Brooklyn Municipal Club 
 November 23, 1920. After describing the Federal and state laws 
 designed to control and regulate the activities of corporations, 
 Mr. Emery said : 
 
 "No such regulation, however, exists for the combinations of laborers 
 in unions. These combinations have amassed great wealth, great power 
 and great influence. An interesting problem is whether, with their possi- 
 bilities for good and evil, they will also yield to some form of regulation 
 against misuse and the public interest. The fact is that the closed shop 
 principle among organized laborers, surrenders to nothing to no extremity 
 of national condition, to no emergency of industrial necessity. It breeds 
 an antagonism to everything opposed to its philosophy. It is against 
 judicial decisions when they do not conform to it; it comes in inevitable 
 conflict with the law, to which it refuses to bow." 
 
 Contracts Violated 
 
 The Philadelphia Board of Trade on November 15, 1920, 
 unanimously adopted the report of its Open Shop Committee 
 which among other things, said: 
 
 "The courts have emphasized as fact the assertion that unionized 
 labor has thoroughly discredited its standing in the community by repeated 
 violations of its contracts." 
 
 The Clothing Manufacturers' Association of Boston, voted 
 on December 6, 1920, to abrogate all contracts with the Amalga- 
 mated Clothing Workers of America. The Employers Associa- 
 tion of Eastern Massachusetts, reviewing the announcement, says: 
 
 "The union has broken agreements at any time it suited their fancy, 
 their business agents have been unscrupulous, untrustworthy and have 
 encouraged deliberate restrictions of output amounting at times to 50 
 per cent, which has caused the manufacturer serious loss, although the 
 basic agreement prohibits all such actions." 
 
 Unions Admit Evil 
 
 We will first show that labor leaders have admitted that if 
 contracts are not kept employers are justified in refusing to deal 
 with the organizations at fault. 
 
72 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Then we will show that unions actually are not responsible 
 financially for their agreements and that in many cases they do 
 violate their signed agreements. 
 
 It is not to be understood that we claim all unions are 
 contract-breakers. Nor do all unions restrict apprenticeship or 
 limit production. But these practices are so common and seem 
 to be so intensified by the adoption of the closed shop that we 
 cannot but connect them as parts of the closed shop system. 
 
 Wise Men Profit by Experience 
 
 (Testimony of Mr. John R. Lawson, member of the inter- 
 national executive board of the United Mine Workers of 
 America, before the Industrial Relations Commission, February 
 3, 1915-) 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK : Let us get it straight. If you were an 
 employer and knew that the I. W. W.'s were contract breakers, that they 
 did not make any secret of it, but shouted it from the housetops and 
 stated it frankly and candidly and openly, would you enter into a contract 
 with them? 
 
 MR. LAWSON: I think like this, about any organization, just the same 
 as I feel about the operators, if their word is not good I am chary about 
 accepting their word after they break it once, I agree to that. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: A very wise rule, Mr. Lawson. Now, 
 .just as I, for example, from my knowledge, look upon the I. W. W.'s, 
 it is very evident that the operators of Colorado looked upon the United 
 Mine Workers of America 
 
 MR. LAWSON (interrupting) : Well 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK (interrupting) : Pardon me. As evidence 
 that in their opinion that the United Mine Workers of America were 
 either unwilling or unable to keep their contracts, they submitted to this 
 commission the experience of Pennsylvania mine owners, who claimed 
 that in a hundred cases the workers had deliberately broken their con- 
 tracts and gone out on strike against their agreement. 
 
 Mr. Lawson, will you tell what you know about a journal called 
 the United Mine Workers' Journal f 
 
 MR. LAWSON : That is the official organ of the United Mine Workers 
 of America. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: You remember that when you were on 
 the witness stand the other day, Mr. Lawson, I read to you out of the 
 records of the hearings a document that had been placed in evidence by 
 the mine owners of Colorado which contained a set of resolutions adopted 
 by the miners of Pennsylvania? 
 
 MR. LAWSON: Yes, sir. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: And you will recall that those resolu- 
 tions adopted by the mine owners charged the United Mine Workers of 
 America in Pennsylvania as having broken their contract, and that there 
 had been a hundred strikes 'in violation of their contracts? 
 
IRRESPONSIBILITY OF UNIONS 73 
 
 MR. LAWSON : Yes that was the charge as I recollect. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: I have here a communication sent to the 
 United Mine Workers' Journal by Mr. W. O. Smith, who from all I can 
 learn is ex-president or ex-chairman of the executive committee of the 
 Kentucky district of the United Mine Workers of America. 
 
 Union Head Admits Contract Violation 
 
 Now, Mr. Smith, in sending his communication to the United Mine 
 Workers of America Journal has this to to say in the matter of contract 
 breaking. He says among other things (reading) : 
 
 "For many years the United Mine Workers of America has preached 
 and practiced the doctrine of inviolability of contracts, and by doing so 
 has won the respect and confidence of the general public a mighty 'influ- 
 ence, affecting all industrial disputes and conflicts. But for the past two 
 or three years this respect and confidence has been waning, not because 
 the officials have failed to do their duty, but because of the indifference 
 of the conservative members of our unions and the activity of the later 
 radical element, which is responsible for the greatest menace that has 
 ever threatened the United Mine Workers of America the local strike. 
 During the past two or three years the international, as well as the dis- 
 trict and sub-district officials have been confronted with many complexing 
 problems some of which seem to threaten the very life of the organiza- 
 tion; but I believe I am safe in saying that no problem has given them 
 as much concern as the problem of local strikes in violation of agree- 
 ments. 
 
 "Thousands of dollars are expended every year in the effort to 
 organize the 250,000 non-union miners in the United States, while hun- 
 dreds of our members go on strikes almost every day in absolute inex- 
 cusable violation of existing agreements." 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: I simply want to correct your point of 
 view, Mr. Lawson, in relation to the questions that were put to you on 
 the matter of contract breaking. It is not the contention of anybody that 
 I have heard or anything I have read that the United Mine Workers of 
 America start out deliberately and intentionally like the I. W. W. to 
 break contracts. It is conceded that the aim and hope and the desire of 
 the United Mine Workers of America is to observe contracts. 
 
 MR. LAWSON : Yes, sir. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: But the facts that have been presented 
 would indicate that in a goodly number of instances they have been unable 
 to make good ; they have not been able to deliver the goods. 
 
 MR. LAWSON: Purely of a local character. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: But widespread. 
 
 MR. LAWSON : Over a territory embracing the United States and 
 Canada. 
 
74 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Refuses to Condemn Practice 
 
 (From testimony before the Industrial Relations Commis- 
 sion, December 29, 1913, of Mrs. Raymond Robins, president or 
 the National Women's Trade League. Page 316 of the record. 
 There is here no strong condemnation of contract-breaking.) 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: If a manufacturer's plant becomes organ- 
 ized and his employes join a trades-union and all of his employes are 
 members of the American Federation of Labor, would you consider it 
 fair on the part of his w'orkmen or fair on the part of the American 
 Federation of Labor, if they had a quarrel with some other concern, per- 
 haps a hundred miles away or ten miles away, and if this man's plant 
 should be closed, simply in order to hurt the other people? 
 
 MRS. ROBINS : I think the sympathetic strike is one of the greatest 
 weapons in the hands of the laboring people. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: Would you think it morally right for a 
 union to go on a sympathetic strike when it was working under a contract 
 with an employer? In other words, would you think it morally right for 
 the union to violate its contract in order to go out on a sympathetic 
 strike ? 
 
 MRS. ROBINS : I do not like breaking contracts, but sometimes you 
 have got to break them. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: You justify the breaking of contracts, 
 do you? 
 
 MRS. ROBINS: That depends upon conditions. 
 
 Strict Accountability Needed 
 
 (Testimony of Mr. John Mitchell, before the Industrial Rela- 
 tions Commission, February I, 1915. Pages 8069, 8070, 8071, 
 8072, 8073 and 8080 of the record. Mr. Mitchell from 1898 to 
 1908 was president of the United Mine Workers of America and 
 from 1898 to 1913 vice-president of the American Federation of 
 Labor. Mr. Mitchell asserts that employers should insist upon 
 the utmost responsibility for agreement-keeping by the unions.) 
 
 MR. MITCHELL: I think it would. I may say I am not an advocate 
 it is a subject that I have not specialized in at all, but I believe in democ- 
 racy the general terms of democracy I believe in. In other words, I 
 believe in government by the people, and I believe it is wise to place upon 
 people the greatest measure of responsibility, just as I believe it is in the 
 industrial world. I believe in industry by agreement, and if I were an 
 employer in making a contract with a labor union I would place upon the 
 union every bit of responsibility I could. Too many employers seek to 
 reserve to themselves the responsibility they should place on the working- 
 men. In making a contract, I say, I would give them all the responsibility 
 I could put upon them, and then I would hold them to a strict account- 
 ability for the discharge of their responsibilities. 
 
IRRESPONSIBILITY OF UNIONS 75 
 
 No Legal Responsibility 
 
 (Excerpts from testimony before the Industrial Relations 
 Commission, May 17, 1915, of Mr. Walter Drew, Counsel for 
 the National Erectors' Association.) 
 
 The first great legal fact in) connection with the trade-union, because 
 of its being a voluntary unincorporated association, is that it is not legally 
 ^responsible in a suit at law for injuries which it ma'y unlawfully inflict 
 upon others^ A great national trade-union may develop the most com- 
 pact form of organization and government. Its thousands of members 
 and hundreds of locals scattered all over the country may be knit to- 
 gether by the most effective machinery for purposes of promoting the 
 interests and purposes of its membership. It may collect vast sums and 
 gather them into its treasury. This vast power of compact organization, 
 aided by equally vast financial resources, may be used by its properly 
 delegated officers in ways which are, under accepted principles of law, 
 contrary to the rights of other members of society. It is the power of 
 the organization, the money of the organization, the common purpose of 
 the organization as distinct from the individual purposes of its members, 
 and the directing intelligence of the organzation which may inflict this 
 unlawful injury upon some third person, and yet the injured person, has 
 no action at law against this same organization for the damages he may 
 suffer. He is left, if he so choose, to seek out the hundreds or thousands 
 of individual members of the organization and to begin action against 
 them! as individuals. The mere description of such a legal remedy indi- 
 cates that for practical purposes it is no remedy at all. 
 
 As an example, those contractors and owners, whose work was des- 
 troyed by the hundred or more dynamite explosions, caused by the Struc- 
 tural Iron Workers' Union, can not recover a dollar in damages from 
 that union. The evidence is full and clear that these explosions were 
 planned by the executive officers of the union, that the moneys to carry 
 them on were voted by the executive board of the union and drawn from 
 th union treasury and expended under the direction of members of the 
 same executive board. Yet that same treasury can not be reached by any 
 known action at law to recover damages for the injury inflicted. 
 
 In the famous Danbury hatters' case, so widely heralded as a new and 
 unprecedented advance in trade-union liability, it seems not to be gen- 
 erally known that the original action was begun against hundreds of the 
 individual members of the hatters' union. The judgment obtained is not 
 against the union, but against individual members thereof, and unless 
 the judgment is paid by the unions in order to protect these individual 
 members, or is paid by Congress, in acordance with the request in that 
 behalf made, it will devolve upon the plaintiff in the Danbury hatters' 
 case to collect his judgment from these hundreds of individual defendants 
 as best "he may; and proceedings for that purpose have been recently 
 instituted. 
 
 While, therefore, the labor organization may develop an immense 
 power for inflicting injury and ruin upon others, it occupies a unique 
 position of possessing absolute legal immunity for the injury thus inflicted. 
 
76 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Power without corresponding responsibility this fact is, in my judgment, 
 the one most important fundamental fact connected with the legal status 
 of the union. What human institution can successfully endure possession 
 of power without responsibility? What more dangerous millstone to be 
 hung about the neck of a labor organization in its upward climb to its 
 proper place in society and in industry? In recent history, what one 
 thing has retarded the growth and development of trade-unionism along 
 right and proper lines so much as the reckless and lawless conduct of 
 those who have achieved its leadership, and why is not the possession of 
 immense power without corresponding responsibility the direct cause of 
 reckless leadership? 
 
 (The effects of such lack of responsibility are pointed out 
 by Ernest F. Lloyd in his monograph "The Closed vs. The Open 
 Shop," published by the National Industrial Conference Board.) 
 Hence, the irresponsibility of the union organization does not stop 
 with the representatives of the local union of the trade to which the 
 immediate workers belong. Each such step in removal thus tends to 
 reduce the responsibility, lessen the possibility of enforcement of agree- 
 ments and increase the opportunities for the exercise of arbitrary authority 
 and power. Yet, again, such removals introduce laxness of discipline, 
 mutual jealousies among leaders of complimentary groups, involving 
 jurisdictional conflicts and a vast confusion, ill will, and opportunity for 
 factional contests, all affecting morale, production and continuity of 
 operation. 
 
 Closed Shop Experience of Employers 
 
 The views of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Skinner, which follow, 
 give the opinions of men with wide experience. They represent 
 two large and influential organizations of employers. 
 
 (From testimony before the Industrial Relations Commis- 
 sion, July 21 and July 22, 1914, of Mr. Dudley Taylor, general 
 counsel for the Employers Association of Chicago. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: What is the attitude, if any, of your association 
 toward the organization of workers; of your membership towards trade- 
 unions ? 
 
 MR. TAYLOR: Generally speaking, it has seemed to me that the mem- 
 bers of our association are inclined to liberal, fair views and to appre- 
 ciate the justice of organization. From my talk with them I am satisfied 
 that they would prefer to do business with organizations of labor provided 
 they were reasonably safeguarded so that they could do business under 
 safe conditions and not have their business disrupted by some unjust de- 
 mands, some whim or caprice. If they could only feel that there was 
 stability enough that the union organization was conservatively directed 
 and managed, I think there would be no complaint, as the employer is 
 looking, above all things, for stability. He must know that his business 
 can go ahead. I don't think he has any quarrel with organizations as 
 such. 
 
IRRESPONSIBILITY OF UNIONS 77 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Will you give to us, as briefly as you can, your 
 opinion in regard to trade-unions? 
 
 No Penalty for Damages 
 
 MR. TAYLOR: I find a great powerful organization daily becoming 
 more powerful that is the labor organization. It has a power to 
 enforce not its requests but its demands. A single employer can't stand 
 against it. It is a question of standing the gaff, or stand the loss not 
 only of profits, but standing the deficit in the conduct of the business 
 perhaps for weeks or months. I say, assuming for the purpose of the 
 argument, that the employer happens to be right, where is his remedy 
 against that powerful organization? I want to call your attention to 
 the fact that these people, forming that sort of labor organization, 
 are irresponsible financially, they can move about the city, be lost 
 to sight. You talk about damage suits, you can't get a damage suit to a 
 hearing for possibly one or two years. You get a judgment; it is worth 
 nothing, it is not any remedy. On the other hand, the loss is continuing 
 during all of that time. Now, I find that when banks, as responsible insti- 
 tutions, seek to do business in a community, they are required to give some 
 token of their responsibility and satisfy the state auditor; that is right, I 
 believe. They have to show their funds ; their funds are under state con- 
 trol. The same thing is true of insurance companies; but here, we will 
 say for the purpose of the same argument, is a powerful organization 
 using its funds for the purpose of smashing another man's business, we 
 will say, unjustly, and those funds are not subject to any control. You 
 can't in this State sue at law a labor union, because there is no statute 
 which renders a labor union liable in a suit against it. You have got to 
 sue its members as partners; you can't get anywhere on that. You 
 can't get their funds into the court's control, the funds which are being 
 used against you all of this time. Now, that is the sort of thing, Mr. 
 Thompson, we, in the vernacular, are up against all the time in this city. 
 
 What Is Needed 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. George N. Skinner, president of 
 the Employers Association of Washington, before the Indus- 
 trial Relations Commission, August 10, 1914. Page 4158.) 
 
 MR. SKINNER: My employment is entirely open shop. In fact, I never 
 have asked, however, whether my people employed are union or non- 
 union men. In the boat business, that I am in, the engineers are pretty 
 generally organized, but I have never taken occasion to ask my office to 
 employ only non-union or union men. They are never taken into account. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: What suggestions have you to make to this condi- 
 tion, as to the way trade-unions should be organized so as to be properly 
 conducted ? 
 
 MR. SKINNER: I think that the conduct of the labor unions should be 
 entirely within the scope of the man that works, the man that is inter- 
 ested in his labor, and I think that they should be made responsible on 
 both sides, and that both sides might have some of it. 
 
78 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: What form of responsibility? Have you given 
 thought to that what that might be? 
 
 MR. SKINNER: The law should prescribe that anything that the labor 
 unions entered into, if they entered into a contract with the employer, 
 that they must carry it out or be penalized financially. They would have 
 to organize, take out a charter, and pay a sufficient amount of capital to 
 guarantee the enforcement of their contract, the living up to the contract. 
 
 Contract Breaking Admitted 
 
 (Extracts from address of John A. Moffitt, Commissioner of 
 Conciliation, United States Department of Labor, before the 
 American Erectors' Association, March 9, 1915. On pages 10919 
 and 10920 of testimony before the Industrial Relations Commis- 
 sion. Here is a clear statement of official union admission of 
 contract-breaking. ) 
 
 As my card would indicate, I am representing the United States 
 Department of Labor. On or about the 27th day of February, Mr. 
 Secretary Wilson of the department was advised that a strike in the oil 
 fields of Oklahoma and Texas, involving approximately 1,000 men, was 
 in vogue, and he was petitioned by the officials of the Brotherhood of 
 Boiler Makers and Iron Ship Builders, requesting that he use the good 
 offices of his department to bring about an adjustment, if possible, of the 
 strike. 
 
 The Secretary was advised that the members of the American Erectors' 
 Association met frequently in the city of Pittsburgh, at the Fort Pitt 
 Hotel, and he directed me to come here and take this matter up with 
 you gentlemen, to see if something could not be done; and if there 
 was not some general grounds upon which you could meet the representa- 
 tives of the boiler makers, looking toward an amicable adjustment of this 
 strike. 
 
 I do not know that I have anything to say other than that the 
 general officers of the boiler makers have informed Secretary Wilson and 
 the Secretary has informed me, that they are willing to make any 
 honorable settlement ^ that will be beneficial to both sides, if a conference 
 can be brought about between representatives of your organization and 
 a committee of their organization. 
 
 I understand that the members of your organization made contracts 
 with their men who work in the field, and they agree that these contracts 
 from time to time are violated, and by their men. They said that the 
 only way they could obviate difficulties of that kind in the future would 
 be to have an agreement with your association and their national organ- 
 ization, instead of with the men in the field; they had in mind when they 
 made this suggestion that in the past they had agreements with the mem- 
 bers of your organization and that the agreements had been violated, and 
 by the men that made the agreements; that is, their own men; they 
 admit that they are guilty of violating these agreements, but they said 
 that the only way that such violations could be obviated in the future 
 would be to have an agreement with your organization and their organ- 
 ization, and not with the men in the field at all ; they said that in making 
 
IRRESPONSIBILITY OF UNIONS 79 
 
 an agreement with their organization that would be mutually beneficial, 
 in the event of men in the field violating any of the provisions of such 
 agreement, they would, by their own act deprive themselves of membership 
 in their organization. These were some of the suggestions they made 
 to get a conference. (The contracts of which Mr. Moffitt speaks were 
 with local boiler makers' unions.) 
 
 A Detriment to Honest Labor 
 
 (From an address by Charles N. Piez, president of the Link- 
 Belt Company, before the Industrial Relations Commission of 
 America, May 21, 1920. Mr. Piez says that in Chicago they 
 maintain a non-union shop because unions persistently failed to 
 keep agreements which had been made.) 
 
 I am asked to speak this morning on the question of "Relation- 
 ships of Organized Labor to Industry." I want to preface my remarks by 
 stating that the Link-Belt Company, of which I have been president for 
 many years, has plants in Philadelphia and Indianapolis, where the 
 question of unionism or non-unionism has never been raised, and where 
 we have maintained pleasant relationships without strife or trouble of 
 any kind since I have been connected with the company for thirty years, 
 and that in Chicago we maintain a non-union establishment. We have 
 maintained that for some thirteen years, and our reason has been that 
 prior to that time we had agreements that were broken four times in 
 five years,' absolutely broken without any cause, resulting in tremendous 
 damage to us. As a result, we decided that so long as labor was not 
 content to abide by its agreements, we would run our industry without 
 agreements. 
 
 Alienates Employers 
 
 (From the testimony of Mr. Frank B. McCord, prominent 
 New York contractor, member of the Iron League, before the 
 Industrial Relations Commission, May 25, 1914. The experience 
 of Mr. McCord has been similar to that of Mr. Piez.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Are you in favor of or opposed to agreements with 
 labor unions? 
 
 MR. McCoRD: I am opposed to an agreement with the ironworkers. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : But generally are you opposed to agreements with 
 labor unions? 
 
 MR. McCoRD: We only have one other union. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: That is the hoisting engineers? 
 -MR. McCoRD: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: With that union, you have an agreement, have you 
 not? 
 
 MR. McCoRD: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Why are you opposed to an agreement with the 
 structural ironworkers ? 
 
 MR. McCoRD : Because they won't live up to an agreement. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: That is to say, they did not in the oast. 
 
8o OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 MR. McCoRD: And they would not in the future. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: Why do you think that the structural iron- 
 worker union would not live up to an agreement? 
 
 MR. Me CORD : They never did. 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLARD: Would you care to give any experience you 
 have had with them? 
 
 MR. McCoRD: Well, take it go back when we started off on the 
 arbitration plan. They formed a new union and the bosses beat them 
 out and then these men that they had broke in were taken into the old 
 union, and, of course, they were wiped out right away; they did not get 
 any more jobs. They were killed right then and there. Then this man 
 Ryan came on from the West there and said the arbitration plan wasn't 
 worth anything, and the structural ironworkers were bigger than New 
 York City they were more powerful and they were going to stop us from 
 working. They have not stopped us yet. 
 
 The same men are at the head of that union as were eight years ago. 
 They have not changed their politics. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. John G. Shedd, president of Mar- 
 shall Field & Co., Chicago, before the Industrial Relations Com- 
 mission, July 24, 1914. Page 3373 of the record. He repeats 
 the experience of Mr. Piez and Mr. McCord. These three men 
 fairly represent the experience of large employers.) 
 
 My experience in relation to collective bargaining and trade unions 
 has not been such as to inspire confidence in the result of th,e various 
 phases of this element. The lack of moral or financial responsibility to 
 carry out the written contracts of these institutions is largely responsible 
 for my state of mind on this question. Collective bargaining, as I have 
 observed it, binds only the employer and not the employe. The peculiar 
 necessities of the business in which I am engaged requires service- active 
 and prompt and requires the immediate and conclusive acquiescence of 
 all in the service from the lowest employe to the head of the house. 
 We make no exception to this rule and we have never found that it 
 was either irksome or detrimental to the interests of the employe. I 
 believe our organization has the highest state of efficiency of any of 
 like nature in the world. To reach this high state of efficiency we have 
 for nearly fifty years adhered strictly to one policy, probably not deviat- 
 ing once a year from such policy; that is, continual promotion from 
 the ranks going so far, if you please, as from elevator operators to 
 stock rooms, stock rooms to sales persons, sales persons to department 
 heads. Every officer of our company has gone up through the business 
 from stock boys or errand boys to the high positions they now occupy. 
 As I view it, none of this could have been accomplished if these men 
 in occupying their lower positions had been members of a fraternity to 
 which they were more loyal than to our business. 
 
OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE 81 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 Outside Interference 
 
 The Closed Shop means outside interference with industrial 
 establishments. It means that some force and will, other than 
 that of the public, is to interfere in and to a greater or less degree 
 control the plants or shops in which individuals have invested 
 their savings. It is control by those with neither financial nor 
 moral responsibility for the conduct of the establishment. The 
 unions with which we have to deal are represented by "business 
 agents" or "walking delegates." These men are not necessarily 
 inclined tq favor strife or to be unreasonable. However, the 
 very nature of their positions tends to cause them to foment 
 strife and to be unreasonable. They go, let us say, to Mr. Smith, 
 manager of a concern, and say to him: "We want you to make 
 a contract with Union No. 61." The men of Union 61 are 
 employed in Smith's establishment. But the walking delegate 
 represents twenty or more local unions; he obtains 95 per cent 
 of his pay from men who are not employed by Smith; he is not 
 employed himself by Smith ; if the union rules lessen production 
 and raise prices, curtail profits or force bankruptcy he is not 
 the loser. 
 
 Many of these delegates, moreover, feel that they will lose 
 their jobs if there are no signs of activity; that if everything 
 seems to be going smoothly their men will think them idle. So 
 this very fact means that friction is a sign of activity and an aid 
 then in keeping their places. Being human, the result is inevi- 
 table. Why should they oppose strikes and disputes; is it not 
 more to their interest to foster and encourage them? 
 
 Irresponsible power, by its nature, tends to become arbitrary 
 in its exercise. The irresponsible nature of the power given 
 means that scheming, self-seeking men endeavor to secure these 
 positions and control the labor organizations. 
 
 Control by One Per Cent 
 
 This control by outsiders goes still deeper. The large 
 majority of labor union members are by nature peaceful, law- 
 abiding American citizens. Do they themselves frame the union 
 policies which govern their actions while at work and on strike? 
 We do not undertake to ourselves to supply the answer, but will 
 
82 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 quote the well-known "Red" Foster. The New York Call, one 
 of his strong supporters, quotes him as follows in its issue of 
 December 13, 1920: 
 
 ''The reason our movement is backward is the very activity of 
 the radicals. 
 
 "At the average meeting of a trade union perhaps five to 
 ten per cent of the members are present. Of these only a few are 
 really active, so that the whole movement depends on one per 
 cent of the total membership. This insignificant minority is the 
 heart and . soul of the labor movement." (Italics ours.) Do you 
 believe in minority rule? In his attempts to impose union rules 
 in a plant does the walking delegate represent only the men in 
 that plant; does he really represent more than theoretically the 
 total membership in his union ? 
 
 But even if all "walking delegates" were perfect, were not 
 influenced by the nature of their work, and took a real interest 
 in the individual employer's welfare even if these things were 
 true, this outside interference to which the employer objects as 
 an interference with the processes of production would still exist. 
 It would exist because of the nature of the present labor organi- 
 zations. 
 
 Who Makes the Union Rules? 
 
 When Mr. Smith, the employer, makes a closed shop agree- 
 ment with the union the union rules must govern in his establish- 
 ment. Who makes these rules? Do his own employes make the 
 rules which govern their relationships with him ? No. The con- 
 trol of their actions, so far as working rules are concerned, does 
 not reside within their own group. The union consists of work- 
 ers in the trade who may be hired by one hundred different 
 employers. The employes of any one must submit to the control 
 of the whole union, whose power comes from the workers em- 
 ployed in the other ninety-nine establishments. 
 
 The "walking delegate" or "business agent," represents only 
 in part the group with which any individual employer is con- 
 cerned. He is not dependent upon this group for which he acts 
 and which he binds by his acts. The employer sees no element 
 of fairness in having the men in his plant bound by rules of 
 apprenticeship, output, etc., made by men ninety-nine per cent of 
 whom are not in his employ. 
 
 Employers object to the Closed Shop because by the inherent 
 nature of the modern unions outside interference, of a totally 
 
OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE 83 
 
 irresponsible nature, is brought into industrial establishments. 
 We saw that rules, adopted by a union most of whose members 
 are employed in other plants, are enforced in closed shop estab- 
 lishments. A little later we will see just what these rules are. 
 
 Third Party Dictation 
 
 (From "The Closed Shop vs. The Open Shop," by Ernest F. 
 Lloyd, published by the National Industrial Conference Board.) 
 
 If the source of control were immediate, that is, if it were lodged in 
 the group of workers with whom the employer deals, so that it might be 
 possible to show the consequences of an action to its members, to reason 
 with them, or even to share with them a loss which it had been predicted 
 would ensue, the employer might feel that the loss would have at least an 
 educational effect and that possibly with more effort on his part a repeti- 
 tion might be avoided. But in dealing with closed shop union control he 
 has neither opportunity nor prospect. He may even know that, so far as 
 the members of his own group are concerned, they agree with him in large 
 measure, yet that their union solidarity, or considerations of personal or 
 family security or comfort, cause them to subordinate their economic 
 interests. 
 
 Hence, we observe that in the closed union shop the policy also of the 
 shop itself is substantially determined by a third party one who may be 
 morally and financially irresponsible and who does not derive his support 
 from the operations of the shop. 
 
84 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 Union Apprenticeship Rules 
 
 The union rules, by which the closed shop plant must abide, 
 show clearly how restriction is caused and encouraged. Thes* 
 rules do not apply in open shop establishments. The rules cite' 
 are typical of rules in existence in other unions and in all sec 
 tions of the country. 
 
 Take first, the rules which limit apprenticeship. The Cemen 
 Finishers in Idaho Falls, Idaho, have this rule: "No employe 
 shall have more than one apprentice at any one time and sho\il< 
 an apprentice be discharged before the expiration of his term o 
 apprenticeship, namely, four years, said employer shall not b 
 entitled to another apprentice in the place of the one having lef 
 until the expiration of the time said apprentice should have t 
 remain to finish his trade. Any journeyman working with appren 
 tices who are not registered zvith the association, shall be subjec 
 to the same fine and penalties as though working with a journey 
 man not a member of this Association." (Italics are ours. 
 Notice the control which the union tries to keep over boys wh< 
 are learning a trade. 
 
 Section 31, of the Carpenters' Union of Idaho Falls, says 
 "Where a contractor has five or more journeymen employe* 
 steadily he may have two apprentices. But at no time shall h 
 employ more than two apprentices." 
 
 The Plumbers' Union provides that "Whenever necessar 
 local unions may allow each shop to be entitled to one apprentic 
 where they employ one or more journeymen 'steadily * * 
 but in no case shall any shop employ more than four apprentices 
 * * * It is expressly understood that in localities where pro 
 visions have already been made to restrict the production of th 
 apprentice less than herein provided they are not to be subjec 
 to this rule." 
 
 The Bricklayers' Union provides that "No contractor sha^ 
 be allowed more than one apprentice." 
 
 These are simply typical of rules enforced by closed sho 
 unions all over the country. Thus, a special committee of th 
 Boston Chamber of Commerce said in its recently submitte- 
 
UNION APPRENTICESHIP RULES 85 
 
 (1921) report: "The building industry has suffered from a lack 
 of apprentices * * *. Union rules and trade agreements do 
 restrict the number of apprentices to be employed." 
 
 Article 9, Section I, page 72 of the minutes of the Rochester 
 (1920) convention of the International Association of Machin- 
 ists, reads: "The rates of apprentices shall be one for every ten 
 machinists, instead of one for every five at at present." 
 
 Creating Craft Monopoly 
 
 Do you see why the employers object to the union apprentice 
 system? Why the public should? The National Association of 
 Manufacturers declares: "In the interest of employes and em- 
 ployers of the country, no limitation should be placed upon the 
 opportunities of any person to learn any trade to which he or she 
 may be adapted." 
 
 Under the rules of the closed shop union what are the oppor- 
 tunities to learn a skilled trade, and who gives the boy who wants 
 to become a carpenter, plasterer, plumber, or molder his oppor- 
 tunity? His parents cannot; neither can the employer. It is the 
 closed shop union which dictates the time when he can start, how 
 long he must serve, and how many apprentices can be employed 
 in any establishment. As pointed out in Chapter III, the closed 
 shop unions also endeavor in many other ways to limit the oppor- 
 tunities of non-members to obtain employment; in some cases 
 they even refuse to permit non-members to join their monopo- 
 listic organizations, or make admission exceedingly difficult. 
 
 Such a system prevents the existence of a continuous supply 
 of efficient mechanics. Craft monopoly is built up; not only the 
 actions of the union members are controlled, but those of every 
 ambitious boy. These rules of the closed shop unions cripple 
 the employer and keep down the wages of workers by preventing 
 boys and young men from learning useful trades and occupa- 
 tions. The employers believe it neither right nor just to refuse 
 opportunity to a boy who is- willing, 'and where an employer 
 wishes to hire him, to learn a skilled trade. Unfair restrictions 
 are placed upon that "equality of opportunity" which is a funda- 
 mental principle of individual liberty and American freedom. 
 
 Prominent economists likewise recognize the inherent evils 
 of the apprenticeship restrictions. Thus, Professor Fetter, of 
 Princeton, says (Modern Economic Problems, Volume II, page 
 303, italics ours) : 
 
OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 "Unions often limit the number of apprentices and deter- 
 mine ivho shall have the privilege of learning the trade." 
 
 Employers who oppose such a system surely deserve the 
 whole-hearted support of the public. 
 
 Practiced in Most Unions 
 
 (Extracts from "Apprenticeship in American Trade Unions," 
 by Dr. J. M. Motley, then Assistant Professor of Economics, 
 Stanford University. Published by Johns Hopkins University, 
 1907.) 
 
 Of the one hundred and twenty national and international trade 
 unions with a total of 1,676,200 members, affiliated in 1904 with the Ameri- 
 can Federation of Labor, fifty unions, with a membership of 766,417, do 
 not attempt to maintain apprenticeship systems. These fifty unions may 
 be divided into four classes. 
 
 As has been said, about fifty unions do not maintain a system of 
 apprenticeship. The remaining national unions, that is, about seventy of 
 the one hundred and twenty affiliated in 1904 with the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor, with a membership of 900,000 together with some half- 
 dozen unaffiliated national unions, attempt, more or less successfully to 
 enforce apprenticeship regulations. 
 
 Trade-union apprenticeship regulations are formulated in some cases 
 by the local branches; in others, by the national unions. In the building 
 trades and among the jewelry workers and the cigar makers, for example, 
 apprenticeship regulation is a local matter. Several reasons for this policy, 
 especially in connection with the building trades, may be noted. 
 
 The characteristics of the trades in which the apprenticeship rules are 
 formulated by the international union are well illustrated by, the window 
 glass workers, iron molders, glass bottle blowers, stove mounters and 
 steel range workers. 
 
 The apprenticeship regulations of four trades represented in the Inter- 
 national Typographical Union, namely, the English compositors, the 
 German compositors, the stereotypers and electrotypers, and the photo- 
 engravers have their apprenticeship rules at least in part determined by 
 the International Typographical Union, but these regulations do not 
 apply to the three remaining unions, that is, the typefounders, the mailers 
 and the newspaper writers. 
 
 The International Association of Machinists attempts to maintain 
 uniform international apprenticeship' regulations. "One apprentice is 
 allowed to each shop, irrespective of the number of machinists employed, 
 and one to every five machinists thereafter; and no boy shall begin to 
 learn the trade of machinist until he is sixteen years old, nor after he is 
 twenty-one years of age." Furthermore, he must serve four years at the 
 trade; but it is a well-known fact to all members of the craft that the 
 rule is hardly more than the recorded expression of opinion of what 
 should be the rule. Great diversity of practice exists among the local 
 unions. 
 
UNION APPRENTICESHIP RULES 87 
 
 Changed Conditions Mean Nothing 
 
 Apart from the economic characteristics of the trades and the gov- 
 ernmental pecularities of the unions, custom has been a factor in deter- 
 mining whether the national or the local union shall regulate apprentice- 
 ship. When certain policies have been followed for years, they are not 
 readily changed, even when conditions change. 
 
 The term of apprenticeship varies in the different trades from two 
 to seven years, three and four years being the ordinary term. The bakers 
 and confectioners and the broom makers require that applicants for 
 membership shall have had two years' experience. 
 
 The watch case engravers require apprentices to serve five years. 
 Some locals in the plumbing trade keep the boy at the trade six years. 
 The machine printers require that each apprentice at the trade shall serve 
 seven years. 
 
 No Scientific Basis 
 
 In theory the time of service required is supposed to represent the 
 time necessary for a boy of average ability, under fair circumstances, 
 to learn the trade well enough to demand a journeyman's wages. In the 
 same trade, however, the term varies in different localities. Thus' the, 
 term of apprenticeship is carpentry in Tacoma, Washington, is three years, 
 while in many Eastern cities four years are required. In the plumbing 
 trade the term varies from two to six years. This variation arises partly 
 from differences in the class of work done, but more especially because 
 the local bodies are stronger in some places than in others. A long 
 apprenticeship term is the rule where the union is strongly organized, or 
 the finer grades of work are to be learned; but where the union is weak 
 or the work desired is in the main of an ordinary type, the tendency is 
 toward a shorter term. 
 
 The apprentice cannot be summarily discharged, except for incom- 
 petency or constant neglect, or, at least, if discharged without an explana- 
 tion satisfactory to the union, his place cannot be filled until the expiration 
 of the time for which he agreed to serve. The employer has the final word 
 as to the fitness of the boy to continue at work, and can discharge him 
 at any time. But, in general, the particular journeyman under whose 
 instruction the apprentice has been placed is regarded as best qualified 
 to speak as to the boy's ability and conduct, and the discharge of an 
 apprentice is ordinarily upon his recommendation or that of the foreman 
 of the shop. 
 
 The character of some trades, notably cigar making and the building 
 trades, as has been noted, makes it necessary to leave apprenticeship rules 
 to local determination. This policy has resulted in a wide range of treat- 
 ment, in many cases unwise and inadequate. A nicer adjustment of rules 
 to local conditions has been secured, but many local unions have been 
 unable to enforce effective apprenticeship regulations. Some unions make 
 no pretense of maintaining an apprenticeship system, and others make 
 rules of the loosest imaginable description. In consequence, the large, 
 strongly-organized unions observe elaborate apprenticeship codes; in the 
 smaller and weaker unions in the same trade a brief statement of a few 
 
OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 lines contains all that is said in regard to apprentices, and even these 
 provisions are often openly neglected. 
 
 Reducing Competition by Limiting Apprentices 
 
 (From "Admission to American Trade Unions," by Dr. F. 
 E. Wolfe, Colby College. Published by Johns Hopkins Univer- 
 sity, in 1912.) 
 
 The most effective device whereby the union may guard the regular 
 entrance to a trade is the limitation of the number, rather then the 
 requirement of certain qualifications, of persons who may become appren- 
 tices. Since the beginning of customary or statutory recognition of the 
 industrial need of an adequate supply of well-trained mechanics a limi- 
 tation of the number of apprentices has been attempted. The essential 
 purpose of numerical limitation has continued to be the insuring of a 
 supply of workmen according to the needs of each trade. But it may easily 
 serve also one immediate aim of trade unionism the maintenance of 
 wages by diminishing the competition of laborers within the trade. 
 Accordingly, all unions attempting apprentice regulation enforce more 
 or less successfully some form of numerical limitation of apprentices. 
 
 Varying forms of limitation are used. But whether enforced as a 
 national or local union regulation, the commonest form is a fixed ratio 
 to the number of journeymen, which remains the same however great 
 the number of journeymen employed. Thus, for instance, the Holders 
 have a fixed ratio of one apprentice to five journeymen employed. Since 
 1902 the Saw Smiths, have maintained the ratio of one to ten. The Lace 
 Operatives enforce a ratio of one to nine ; the Metal Polishers, one to eight 
 the Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, one to seven; the Boiler Makers, 
 one to five; and the travelers goods -and leather novelty workers one 
 to four. In many trades local conditions make it necessary that the 
 local unions should control the number of apprentices. It has conse- 
 quently been the policy of the Cigar Makers, the Carpenters, the Painters, 
 the Bricklayers, and the Printers to permit the ratio to be determined by 
 the local unions. In such cases the ratio present varying proportions. 
 The usual ratio prevailing among the local unions of the Painters is 
 one apprentice to a shop with one for each five additional journeymen, 
 among the Bricklayers, one to three, and among the Printers, one to five. 
 
 A second form of ratio is a declining one, by which the number of 
 apprentices is reduced as the number of journeymen increases. Thus, 
 the broom and whisk makers permit one apprenticeship to a shop of 
 less than twelve men, two to a shop of less than twenty-two and three to 
 a shop of twenty-two men or more; but no more than three may be 
 accepted. This form of regulation merges into the third form which 
 limits absolutely the number that may be employed in any one shop. Thus 
 the Barbers' International Union has since 1894 allowed only one appren- 
 tice to any shop displaying the union card. Likewise the Journeymen 
 Plumbers' United Association provides that apprentices may be accepted 
 when necessary, but local unions shall in no case accept more than four 
 in any one shop. 
 
UNION APPRENTICESHIP RULES 
 
 Views of Employers 
 
 The following views of representative employers are ex- 
 tremely interesting. They show the harm to industry and to boys 
 of ambition which the union apprenticeship rules work. Mr. 
 Donnelley, who runs both closed and open shop establishments, 
 answers the argument that the union rules prevent unemploy- 
 ment. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. T. E. Donnelley, conducting print- 
 ing establishments in Chicago and Indianapolis ; before the Indus- 
 trial Relations Commission, July 25, 1914.) 
 
 MR. DONNELLEY: Well, now, I think the greatest charge against the 
 unions is the fact that they limit apprentices. If there is any one thing 
 which this country has stood for it is the fact that the young man 
 has a chance. Unions have tried to close that chance. I understand 
 I am only now speaking from what I remember in reading that the 
 great majority of criminals are not immigrants, but are the sons of 
 immigrants. Now, we have a condition here in Chicago of thousands and 
 thousands of the second generation of immigrants growing up who are 
 prohibited by the rules of the union from learning a trade. What is 
 before them is this: They have got to stay in what we call common 
 labor, in the ranks of common labor. That means low wages, little oppor- 
 tunity, and social dissatisfaction arises. When we established our open 
 shop I made up my mind that I was going to try, as far as I was con- 
 cerned, to correct that evil. Of course we need boys sixteen years 
 of age. The law prohibited a boy younger than sixteen, and, as we 
 all know, from working more than eight hours a day, and from working 
 on machinery. Now, the fact is that there are very few factories in 
 Chicago running eight hours a day, even union shops, because they 
 run more than eight hours a day in order to get the Saturday after- 
 noon half holidays. We could not get boys at sixteen years of age 
 that we need to learn the business, because they had been ruined in the 
 years between fourteen and sixteen years of age. It is an established 
 practice among the people of the lowest walks of life that when their 
 children are boys of fourteen they must go out and earn a living. I 
 do not uphold that, but that is the unfortunate situation. So we made 
 up our minds we would start in to save those boys. We established 
 in our plant a school where a boy came to work for half a day in our 
 factory, and then for three and a half hours he would go to our school. 
 Another boy would go to school in the morning and work at the factory 
 in the afternoon. There were not two boys in the factory at the time 
 and they did not have any disarrangement of the boys lying around. In 
 this school we not only teach them to set type and all the technique of 
 the art of printing, but we teach them arithmetic and give them algebra 
 and geometry and give them English and give them science, etc. Now, 
 when they are sixteen we put those boys in the factory full time, except 
 for three hours a week. We have to-day in our factory eighty-seven 
 of those boys. We have been running now for six years. If I was running 
 
go OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 union conditions I would be entitled to twenty-eight. We now have 
 eighty-seven. 
 
 Now, I feel very strongly on this question of apprenticeship, and it 
 seems to me it is the greatest charge against unionism. 
 
 Several years ago in New Jersey a law was introduced, which was 
 not passed, prohibiting unions from limiting the number of apprentices. 
 I think it should be passed. I think it should be passed here. I think 
 the State should have the right to say they have the right to say he 
 must go to school until he is fourteen, and he cannot work over eight 
 hours a day until he is sixteen and I think the State, the community, 
 should have the right to say that a boy shall have the opportunity of 
 learning a trade, and the union cannot prohibit, provided, of course, .the 
 boy is really being instructed. I don't think they should be allowed 
 to come in there and be exploited and thrown out in the street after 
 their wages have come to a reasonable rate. But as long as the boys 
 are receiving real instruction I think that they should be allowed to 
 work, should be by law permitted to work and that the unions should 
 not prohibit it. 
 
 I would also say that the same scheme which I have adopted in 
 my factory has now been adopted by others, and they have established 
 a school for the whole printing industry that will run the open shop. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Take the apprenticeship proposition assuming there 
 were no unions what would be the basis of limitation of the amount of 
 apprentices in any shop? 
 
 MR. DONNELLEY: I do not think there should be any limitation, 
 provided the boys are really instructed. Of course, I can realize 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : In the industry itself, would the owner of the plant 
 limit, or what would be the proper basis of his limitation if he did? 
 
 MR. DONNELLEY: Well, now, of course I can appreciate that the 
 unions would fear at first that there would be a great influx of boy 
 laborers, which they might think is cutting their wages, but as soon as 
 this proposition was all taken care of all the boys were employed of 
 course that would not exist. I think the limitation of apprentices would 
 be the number of apprentices that the man would think he would need 
 at that time. I think if every man tried to take on an average the 
 number of employes in his plant, that would be the natural limit. I 
 am quite sure we are absorbing in our plant the number graduated each 
 year, and there will be no men laid off on account of it. 
 
 (Statement of Mr. Grant Fee, president of the Building 
 Trades Employers Association of San Francisco to the Industrial 
 Relations Commission, 1914. Pages 5312 and 5313 of the record.) 
 
 Passing now from the limitation of output, let us consider the 
 conditions confronting the employer with reference to apprentices seek- 
 ing admission to the various building trades. 
 
 The employers in the structural-iron business think the apprentice 
 system fails to measure up to its necessities, in that it does not allow for 
 a normal increase of membership without unduly and all too hastily 
 
UNION APPRENTICESHIP RULES 91 
 
 crowding the apprentice into the journeyman class. The attention of 
 your body is called to the fact that but one apprentice is allowed to eight 
 journeymen. A majority of jobs in this business are small, where a 
 full erecting gang is made up of the five men and one engineer, but 
 no apprentice is allowed. The work is particularly hazardous, and the 
 annual death and disability rate high. The nature of the work forces 
 the older men to find other employment. Were the apprentices in this 
 craft to serve the time necessary to make them proficient journeymen, 
 the restriction placed upon their number would not supply recruits for 
 the ranks to take the places of those who drop out, much less provide 
 for a normal increase, unless some expedient were adopted. It follows 
 that there are many journeymen who have served only a month or two 
 as apprentices, who, for that reason, are not and cannot be capable 
 all around men, yet they must be paid the regular scale of wage. 
 That this condition should be remedied needs no argument. 
 
 Apprentice System Harms Apprentices 
 
 The apprenticeship system in the sheet-metal trades, though somewhat 
 different, works upon the employer just as great a hardship and acts as 
 a boomerang to the apprentice. 
 
 Looking at the laws governing the apprenticeship system, we find 
 the by-laws of Local Union No. 104, of San Francisco, Cal., Sheet Metal 
 Workers' International Alliance, article 14, section 6, states that appren- 
 tices when starting at the trade shall be required to apply to the execu- 
 tive board for registration. This section provides that no employer can 
 place a boy as an apprentice in a shop unless said boy has been regis- 
 tered as an apprentice by the executive board of the union, and should 
 the employer desire to register any particular boy, before said boy can 
 be placed in his shop, he must wait until the boys already registered 
 by the union have been placed as apprentices. In many cases it has been 
 found almost impossible to get any particular boy registered and placed 
 in any particular shop. 
 
 Article 14, Section 3, of the same by-laws, states that all apprentices' 
 members shall appear before the examining board once every six months 
 and shall have an increase in wages from time to time, at the discretion 
 of the board. This sum is increased from time to time by said board, 
 and the boy is warned that he can not work for any firm under the rate 
 set by said examining board. In practice it is found that after a period 
 ranging from a year to eighteen months the rate set by the union is 
 greater than the boy can earn, with the limited knowledge he has attained 
 in this period. 
 
 Practically this system, therefore works an elimination of these boys 
 from the trade, because they are obliged, by union law, to demand more 
 from the employer than their earning capacity is capable of producing. 
 
 Article 14, section 4, of the by-laws of the same union states that 
 every apprentice member shall have his rating established on his card, 
 same to be his rating for six months. This condition has been presented 
 to the local union many times without favorable results to the boy. 
 A careful perusal of the general principles of the Amalgamated Sheet 
 
92 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Metal Workers' International Alliance will show, under the heading, 
 "General Principles" (apprenticeship), the following statement: 
 
 "We favor the adoption of a legal apprenticeship system, the parents 
 binding the boy to remain at least three years, and the employer shall not 
 have more than one apprentice for every six journeymen in his employ." 
 
 The employers also favor a legal apprenticeship of three years. 
 
 The apprentice, then, because of his inability to earn the wage insisted 
 on by the union, must, after a wasting year or eighteen months, remain 
 either an inefficient mechanic or seek other employment. 
 
 Turning to the case of the Lighting Fixture Hangers' Union we have 
 a concrete example of the policy of this union regarding those seeking 
 to enter. The letters in connection with this case (see Exhibit No. 24) 
 show an honest attempt by a boy to gain admission to this union. This 
 union failed to respond to his personal request. The matter was then 
 taken up by the Lighting Fixture Club, the association of employers in this 
 trade, and to their letter requesting that some action be taken by the 
 union no response was forthcoming. 
 
 The letter by the club is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and 
 marked "Exhibit No. 25." Here, then, deliberate lack of action on the 
 part of the union prevents a man from taking up a trade to his liking 
 and forces him into restriction of apprenticeship, believing that every boy 
 in America should have the opportunity to learn a trade. 
 
 An Argument Answered 
 
 When faced by their rules restricting the opportunity to 
 learn skilled trades the closed shop apologist sometimes says : 
 
 "These rules may exist, but they work no hardship. Inves- 
 tigations show that employers frequently do not employ even as 
 many apprentices as our rules allow them." 
 
 This is not true in a majority of cases, but it does happen to 
 be true in some places. Several things account for this condi- 
 tion: 
 
 (1) Union apprenticeship rules restrict the amount and 
 kind of work apprentices may perform, thereby making it unpr^f- 
 itable for closed shop employers to hire apprentices. 
 
 (2) Sometimes the apprenticeship wage demanded by the 
 union is so high as to make employment of more than a minimum 
 number inadvisable. 
 
 (3) Union journeymen frequently evince little interest in 
 the apprentices they are supposed to instruct, making it impos- 
 sible for them to become highly skilled. The result is to increase 
 the number of inefficient journeymen in union ranks ; the employer 
 does not desire to add to the number. 
 
 (4) Where work of an extra high grade is performed 
 apprentices are not desired. 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 93 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 Output Restriction 
 
 The rules of many unions provide for limitation of the 
 amount of work a worker shall perform in the course of a day. 
 Plans for the increase of efficiency by scientific methods are 
 opposed. 
 
 The testimony offered will show the fact of a decline in pro- 
 duction and then the union rules which result in such decline. 
 In Chapter XI we will examine the operations of open shop 
 plants and, as far as possible compare their costs with closed 
 shop plants. 
 
 It is sometimes denied that labor unions do restrict output, 
 but the denial cannot be supported by the facts. The official 
 report for the fiscal year 1920 of the Construction Division of 
 the United States Army says: 
 
 "While rates and materials have increased throughout the United 
 States it is also a fact, that production has decreased to such an extent 
 that it is very marked in certain localities. Bricklayers who at one time 
 laid an average of fifteen hundred bricks per day on straight walls, are 
 now averaging between six and seven hundred; plumbers who roughed in 
 and finished five fixtures in five days have shown a decided decrease in 
 the work performed. The carpenters, too, who fitted, hung, and locked 
 four and five large doors per day seem to be no more, and so on down 
 the line. The universally attractive high standard wages paid to organ- 
 ized labor have placed the second rate craftsmen on a par with the high 
 class, efficient artisans and instead of the average day's work being raised 
 it is proportionately lowered because the first-class journeyman must 
 carry along his less efficient brother, which results in the above condition." 
 
 This is from an official government report. 
 
 The report, it will be observed, refers to "organized labor," 
 which, to-day, means the closed shop advocates. The union rules, 
 by which the closed shop plant must abide, show clearly how 
 restriction is caused and encouraged. These rules do not apply 
 in open shop establishments. The rules cited are typical of rules 
 in existence in other unions and in all sections of the country. 
 
 Harvey's Weekly of December 4, 1920, states : 
 "Statistics show that in Indiana the wages of bricklayers have in- 
 creased by several steps, from 1909 to 1920 to the extent of 127 per cent, 
 but that their efficiency, denoted by the number of bricks laid in a day, 
 has declined to nearly 51 per cent Figures such as these are repeated in 
 many occupations." 
 
94 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 According to the December 15, 1920, bulletin of the Alton, 111., 
 Manufacturers' Association, the Grand Jury of Cuyahoga County, 
 Ohio, after investigating Housing Conditions, said: "The chief 
 cause of the increased building costs, was that labor would not 
 give a full day's work, and that they are doing less than half the 
 work they did on a pre-war basis." To verify this statement, the 
 Builders' Exchange of Cleveland, gave these figures: Lathing, 
 eight hours, 1914, 107 yards; 1919, 88 yards. Painting, same 
 job 1914, 172 hours ; 1920, 238 hours. Both for 1914 and 1919, 
 the figures relate to "closed shop" labor. 
 
 Mr. A. W. Wilson, Business Agent of Local Plumbers and 
 Steam Fitters Union No. 665, in Buffalo, is quoted in the Buffalo 
 Commercial of January 4, 1921, as calling attention : 
 
 "To the fact that the average steamfitter could erect and connect 
 from four to six radiators in an eight-hour day, but that in the past they 
 had been limited by these outside influences to erecting and connecting 
 not more than one to one and one-half radiators per day. In other words : 
 the union steamfitters in the past have been compelled to limit their output 
 ^ not to exceed one-quarter or one-third of their otherwise natural 
 ability." 
 
 Union Rules Limit Production 
 
 The plumbers in their Constitution, adopted in 1913, provide 
 (Section 125), that members cannot make "use of bicycle and 
 motorcycle during working hours." The obvious result is to 
 prevent their covering more than a limited number of jobs in a 
 day. The Baltimore local union of plumbers prohibits its mem- 
 bers telephoning to the employers when they are "out jobbing to 
 know if there are any more jobs in the neighborhood." 
 
 In a number of places the lathers limit the day's work of 
 wood lathers. The stone cutters' union goes at it in another way, 
 and forbids any member receiving more than the other men on 
 the same "job." The more efficient workman can receive no 
 more than his fellow-worker, perhaps half as efficient. The New 
 York Branch of the Brotherhood of Carpenters has adopted this 
 by-law : "Any member who does an unreasonable amount of 
 work * * * shall be fined for the first offense $10.00; for 
 the second offense he shall be suspended or expelled." We 
 declare that policies which make all men on a job earn the same 
 amount and produce the same quantity, regardless of individual 
 differences in their ability, are absolutely wrong. 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 95 
 
 Government Report Condemns System 
 
 The official report of the United States Government, before 
 quoted, brings out clearly the evils of such a system, a system 
 which is a vital part of the closed shop plan of operation. 
 
 "The Government, where it employs laborers direct, both skilled and 
 unskilled, cannot discriminate either in favor of or against organized 
 tradesmen, but it can on its maintenance and utilities work, hire and pay 
 competent, qualified men based on their efficiency rather than any set stand- 
 ard of wages which might be adopted by a body of men regardless of the 
 ability of men who are to receive that rate. The injustice works two 
 ways, both to the detriment of the efficient workmen and also to the 
 employer who must carry along an inefficient employe at the higher rate 
 simply because of his affiliations with an organization. While it may be 
 common practice, nevertheless, experience has taught us that no single 
 schedule is equally adaptable for all trades from a standpoint of produc- 
 tion." 
 
 Condemned by Economists 
 
 Professor Adams, in his book on "Labor Problems" says 
 that: "The good effects of collective bargaining may plainly be 
 negatived by * * * undermining the standard of efficiency 
 through underhand restriction of output." 
 
 Professor Fetter, of Princeton, in Volume II of his book on 
 "Modern Economic Problems," says (italics ours) : 
 
 "Unions often limit the number of apprentices and determine who 
 shall have the privilege of learning the trade. By a variety of regula- 
 tions they limit the output and in many cases (though less frequently 
 now) have opposed the use of labor-saving machinery." 
 
 Professor Deibler, of Northwestern University, testifying 
 before the Industrial Relations Commission, July 23, 1914, said 
 that, "limiting the output" by "taking the matter into the hands 
 of the employe without the consent of the employer * * * is 
 detrimental. I think it operates detrimentally to the laborers 
 themselves to the extent which the limitation of output goes when 
 you abuse its use." 
 
 Minimum Rates and Maximum Wages 
 
 (Extracts from "The Standard Rate in American Trade 
 Unions," by Dr. David A. McCabe, Professor of Economics in 
 Princeton (jniversity. Published by Johns Hopkins University, 
 1912. Dr. McCabe shows the methods by which unions limit 
 the day's work and tend to make all workers earn the same 
 amount, regardless of individual efficiency.) 
 
 By the term "standard rate," as employed in the present monograph, 
 is meant a rate of wages fixed by a trade union as payment for a given 
 
96 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 product or for work of a given duration in a particular trade or branc 
 of a trade, and binding on the members of the union engaged on tha 
 product or in that branch of industry. 
 
 The maintenance of standard rates has always been a leading featur 
 of American trade-union wage policies. 
 
 This distinguishing mark of a standard rate, that is to say, the attribut 
 which makes a union rate standard, is uniformity of application, or th 
 obligation to observe such a rate in all the shops or localities for whic 
 it is established. A very important point with regard to any given rat 
 therefore is the industrial or territorial extent over which it is standarc 
 Some rates are standard only for single shops, others for localities, other 
 for districts or sections embracing many localities and some in all shop 
 or plants in the entire union jurisdiction. 
 
 There are in many unions policies or attitudes with reference t 
 the relation of output and wages which discourage the payment of wage 
 above the union minimum. The union rule or attitude in these case 
 does not have its origin in any opposition to the receiving of wages abov 
 the minimum. The prevention of "rushing" and of increasing the outpu 
 expected of the average workman as "a day's work" is the direct en< 
 aimed at. 
 
 Other building-trades unions offer less explicit discouragement t 
 receiving more than the minimum rate for greater speed in working, bu 
 in general the sentiment of the men is against a few men receiving mor 
 than the others on the same job simply on account of greater speed. 1 
 few unions have specific regulations against rushing or setting a pace 
 The result is that in trades where speed can be compared men do abou 
 the same amount of work and payment above the minimum is usually fo 
 general competency or workmanship of a higher grade and not fo 
 speed. 
 
 A few unions effectually discourage very great variation in wages o: 
 account of speed by the adoption of limits to the amount of work to b 
 done in a day. The lathers limit the day's work of wood lathers ii 
 many places, and a resolution establishing a national limit was adoptd 
 by the 1907 convention. "Stints" are observed in many local unions o 
 other trades where the character of the work makes their enforcemen 
 feasible. Sometimes, as among the coat operators and the cutters ii 
 the Garment Workers' Union and among the local unions of the art glas 
 workers, these rules are adopted as defences against the enforcement o 
 larger tasks by the employers. The meat cutters, when a strong unior 
 gave much attention to limiting the day's work of time workers. At ; 
 meeting of the national executive board in 1901 to consider the formula 
 tion of a scale of wages, "it was declared the sense of the executiv 
 board that in order to avoid the unjust methods that are often adopted b; 
 many superintendents and foremen in forcing unjust conditions by crowd 
 ing the men that the amount of work to be performed and considere< 
 a fair day's work should be determined, the same to be based on a ten 
 hour day." In the 1902 convention the president of the union, in pointing 
 out that the time had not yet come to adopt a uniform scale for hoj 
 butchers stated that the prevention of rushing should be enforced befor- 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 9> 
 
 anything else. The Chicago local unions while they were able, enforced 
 limits which considerably reduced the average output. 
 
 It has long been common among the iron molders to observe a "set 
 day's work." Originally, a "set" was the number of castings which a man 
 was expected by the employer to do. The workmen later began in many 
 localities to adopt "sets" for themselves, and the amount of work which 
 was to be regarded as a "set" came finally to be the subject of agree- 
 ment between the employer and the shop committee. 
 
 Very little seems to be known as to the difference in efficiency among 
 men engaged in the same kind of work. It is safe to assume, however, 
 that they are not reflected in time-working trades with any exactness by 
 the wages paid, even where there is no union minimum. When the union 
 confines its action in wage rating to the establishment of a single mini- 
 mum rate for members engaged in the same kind of work, it is obvious 
 that the adjustment of individual earnings to individual capacity is not 
 as likely to be secured as under the piece-rate system. Even where the 
 union does not discourage large outputs, the time wages of the better men 
 do not exceed the minimum in the same proportion that the men show 
 efficiency above the average. 
 
 The maintenance of a minimum, rate by a union also in another way 
 tends to make wages uniform. The fact that a given rate is the "union" 
 rate, and as such becomes the center of attention and the subject of nego- 
 tiation and, even of conflict this makes it the presumptive rate. More- 
 over, many employers who are brought with much reluctance to agree to 
 observe the minimum look upon the minimum as a "lump" rate which they 
 have agreed to pay the union for the labor of its members. These 
 employers often take the ground that they should not be expected or 
 cannot afford to pay the better men more than the minimum, because they 
 are compelled to pay the union rate to many men who are not worth it. 
 The provisions in agreements noted above against reducing the higher 
 men are evidences of this feeling. The union officials assert that some 
 employers' associations have a rule against paying men more than the 
 minimum. There is, of course, a greater likelihood of united action against 
 the payment of differential wages when the minimum is established by 
 agreement of the union and the employers as a body. 
 
 The Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers, the 
 Flint Glass Workers, and the Window Glass Workers, for years main- 
 tained limits of output in their national scales, and the scales of the 
 Window Glass Workers and of some branches of the Flint Glass Workers 
 still provide such limits. 
 
 Where the limits have been abandoned, it has been because the unions 
 have been unable to maintain them on account of the opposition of the 
 employers and the competition of non-union workers. 
 
 R\iles Which Restrict Output 
 
 (From "Unemployment in American Trade Unions," by Dr. 
 D. P. Smelser. Published by Johns Hopkins University, in 1919. 
 Pages 46-50. Dr. Smelser shows that the majority of unions 
 have unwritten rules for the restriction of output. Dr. Smelser 
 
98 OPEN SHOP -ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 answers the argument that such restriction prevents unemploy 
 ment.) 
 
 The policy of restriction of output is justified by a number of union 
 as a method by which emplo3 r ment may be increased. The desire t 
 "make the work go round" is prevalent chiefly in trades which expe 
 rience extreme seasonal fluctuations, and where the output is restricte* 
 in order to "make the seasons longer." The instances of union regula 
 tions for the systematic restriction of output are not very numerom 
 despite the fact that the inducements to adopt such policies are very grea- 
 Fifteen years ago, a number of unions provided in their constitutions fo 
 a restriction of output, but only a few have maintained such policie 
 to the present time. The force of public opinion and the increasin 
 disinclination of the employers to bargain with the unions that open! 
 declared for restriction forced these unions to abandon such policie! 
 Two of the most glaring and, perhaps, most important illustrations o 
 restriction of output which are sanctioned by the national unions, ar 
 those of the printers and the machinists. 
 
 The Typographical Union prohibits the loaning, borrowing, purchas 
 or sale of news matter in type, linotype, matrix or plate form or o 
 miscellaneous matter or cuts in small forms between newspapers of 
 city. Furthermore, the loaning, borrowing, exchange, purchase or sale o 
 matter or matrices, or cuts of advertisements, by one local newspape 
 to another, is prohibited, except that when the matrices of advertisement 
 are furnished by one local newspaper to another, the text shall be reprc 
 duced within one week from the time of publication as nearly like th 
 original as possible, made up, read, corrected and proofs be submitte 
 to the chairman for inspection. This rule has been characterized a 
 "job making" of the most despotic sort, and, although some justificatio 
 has been attempted for the rule which requires the resetting of advertisin 
 matter, a great many of the members of the union criticise the rules o 
 the ground that the only reason for their enforcement is the desire t 
 "make work." 
 
 The International Association of Machinists in 1901, prohibited it 
 members from operating more than one machine. The one-man-one 
 machine rule, however, is not operative when the machines require n 
 special skill to supervise them or are double machines. This rule ha 
 its genesis in an unwritten law which prevailed in the trade before th 
 organization of the machinists. And indeed, many employers do not no^ 
 object to the rule when it is applied to establishments which make larg 
 machinery, because in these establishments two machines cannot be effect 
 ively operated by a single workman. However, in shops making smalle 
 work, the rule operates as a restriction of output, for often one man i 
 capable of operating more than one machine. Thus, while the one-mar 
 one-machine rule of the machinists is justified in a great number of case 
 there are other instances where its operation is merely a method c 
 "making work." The union explains that the purpose of the rule is th 
 physical protection of the workman, but it seems clear that this is nc 
 the only motive. An officer of the union said in 1901 : "We prevente 
 the introduction of the two-machine system in 137 shops, employin 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 99 
 
 9,500 men, and it is safe to say that if this system had been introduced 
 the force of men would have been reduced one-eighth; hence, in this we 
 have saved the positions of 1,188 men." 
 
 These two examples are by no means the only instances of restriction 
 of output in American unions. Thus, a curious regulation of the plumbers 
 for increasing the consumption of time is the prohibition upon its mem- 
 bers of "the use of the bicycle and motorcycle during the working hours." 
 A business agent when asked for the justification of this rule stated 
 that "a plumber could cover twice as many jobs that way." 
 
 In the majority of trades there are unwritten regulations for the deter- 
 mination of the daily "stint." And, in the greater number of cases, they 
 have been handed down from one generation of members to another. 
 They are not incorporated in any constitutions or working rules, but 
 there is a tacit understanding among the members as to what constitutes 
 a day's work. 
 
 It is very doubtful whether restriction of output affects to any extent 
 the amount of unemployment. If restriction were applied only in sea- 
 sons of depression, such might be the effect, but restriction of output 
 on the part of individual workmen generally occurs in periods of pros- 
 perity. The employers maintain that in busy times men work at a more 
 leisurely pace than they do in dull times, and the reason for this differ- 
 ence is obvious. When every member of the local union is employed 
 and there , is need for additional workmen, some workmen do no more 
 than is absolutely necessary because they do not fear immediate dis- 
 charge. On the other hand, however, when only two-thirds of the trade 
 is employed, the other third being idle but anxious to secure work, 
 the workmen who have employment will exert themselves to do all they 
 can, knowing that many unemployed men are waiting for any vacancy 
 that may occur. 
 
 Restriction by Closed Shop Labor 
 
 (The following account of output restriction by closed shop 
 labor was written by Noel Sargent, former instructor in eco- 
 nomics at the University of Minnesota.) 
 
 No fair-minded man, whether he is an employer of labor or not can 
 have any valid objection to labor receiving adequate wages, having good 
 working conditions, and reasonable hours. But is there any good and 
 satisfactory reason why at the present time labor shouldn't give in return 
 an honest day's work for a day's pay? It is essentially dishonest for a 
 man to give a lesser return than he is able to give. You, Mr. Farmer or 
 Mr. City Dweller, would righteously resent it if you hired a man to paint 
 your house and discovered that half of the time he was supposed to be 
 working, he was sitting behind the barn smoking his pipe. Wouldn't 
 you? Yet that policy is the prevailing evil to-day in the ranks of union 
 labor. 
 
 You and I are being "sandbagged" into paying higher prices for the 
 house that shelters us, the clothes that protect us and the food that 
 nourishes us. No matter whether you live or die the process is made 
 more expensive as a result of union labor's arbitrary and unfair policy 
 of restriction. 
 
ioo OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 There is plenty of proof in addition to observations most of us ha^ 
 had an opportunity to make or that have been forced upon us. We wa: 
 to be absolutely fair, however, so here is an extract from a signed artic 
 prepared for the writer, November 10, 1912, by Mr. C. W. Doyle, busine 
 agent (practically the same as "General Manager") of the Central Lab 
 Council of Seattle: 
 
 "It has often been stated that there is some restriction of the outpi 
 That is not true, there being no limit to what a man should or should n 
 do in a given time. In times past in some trades such a condition d 
 prevail, but such an unfair demand could not last. Therefore, it has be 
 abolished in every craft." 
 
 Just note these things about Mr. Doyle's denial. He says it would 
 an "unfair demand" to limit men as to what they "should or should not < 
 in a given time." Past restrictions, lie says, have been "abolished in eve 
 craft," and it is "not true" that output is restricted to-day. 
 
 Now I am going to present proof which will, I believe, convince a 
 reasonable person that labor unions actually do restrict output at t! 
 present time and just remember that this high labor official says tf 
 practice is "unfair." 
 
 Proof That They Do 
 
 The following statements proving that unions do restrict output a 
 found in books written by authorities recognized as fair, and in neai 
 every case quite friendly to organized labor. These books are written 
 scholars and investigators, men friendly to the labor unions and th 
 prove that production is actually cut down by the deliberate policies 
 the trade-unions. 
 
 Professor Groat concludes a study of the question as follows: 
 
 "The facts seem to stand out that limitation of output is purpos< 
 practiced by laborers in unions as well as out; that there are locals whc 
 members have deliberately adopted rules providing for such restricti 
 and imposing a penalty for their violation. * * * In many other instam 
 it appears to be well established that laws and rules have been not 01 
 enacted but often enforced in order to accomplish restriction of outpu 
 
 The labor unions do not realize that in adopting such rules they c 
 not only hurting the rest of the community and raising the cost of livii 
 but that they are hurting themselves, as Professor Adams truly says. 
 
 Fifteen years ago a large number of the unions used to provide 
 their constitutions for restrictions on output. Public opinion was agaii 
 this "unfair demand" and the employers in many cases refused to barge 
 with unions openly declaring for restriction so these unions were fore 
 to abandon such policies in their constitutions. So only a few unic 
 to-day have provisions in their constitutions which provide for restricti 
 of output ; but most of them advocate and practice restriction neverthele 
 as a result of by-laws or the "unwritten law." 
 
 Such practices are only one form of selling dishonest goods. Th 
 advocates and users practice fraud on buyers and on the general pub; 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 101 
 
 Examples of Restriction 
 
 Many of the unions have by-laws and regulations, some covering all 
 of the locals in the United States and others being only local, which 
 restrict output. The following examples are similar to restrictions in 
 existence all over the country. 
 
 The Baltimore local union of plumbers prohibits its members from 
 telephoning to the employers when they are "out jobbing to know if there 
 are any more jobs in the neighborhood." A fine way of making it more 
 expensive to get plumbing jobs done! 
 
 In a number of places the lathers limit the day's work of wood 
 lathers. The stone cutters' union goes at it in another way, and forbids 
 any member receiving more than the other men on the same "job." If you 
 are a more efficient worker than the average and able to earn more, you 
 must nevertheless keep down the amount of work you do, so that your 
 earnings won't be any more than the other fellows, perhaps half as 
 efficient, get. And yet the men who make such rules are the very ones 
 who come around to us complaining about "robbery" and wanting a 
 "square deal" but we want it to be one for everybody. To us it does 
 not seem just for a union to fine one of its members who produces more 
 than the average ; union coal miners have been fined, according to Gov- 
 ernor Allen of Kansas, as much as $45.00 each for producing too much 
 coal in one week. This method of restricting output, and consequently 
 raising prices, is a shameful imposition on the American public. 
 
 The International Association of Machinists has for years prohibited 
 its members from operating more than one machine. In large shops this 
 doesn't work any hardship, but in shops which do work on a smaller 
 scale the rule operates as a restriction on the output, since one man is 
 often capable of operating more than one machine. 
 
 National limits are imposed upon the amount of work that may be 
 done or the amount that may be earned by the Window Glass Workers 
 and some branches of the Flint Glass Workers. Local or shop limits are 
 known to exist in these unions ; Stove Mounters, Hatters, Iron, Steel and 
 Tin Workers, Pen and Pocket Knife Grinders, Table Knife Grinders, 
 Broom Makers, Leather Workers, and Brick Makers. 
 
 The above are typical instances of union rules which result in output 
 restriction. And as Dr. Smelser says : 
 
 "In the majority of trades there are unwritten regulations for the 
 determination of the daily 'stint' * * * They are not incorporated in any 
 constitutions or working rules, but there is a tacit understanding among 
 the members as to what constitutes a day's work." 
 
 It is an industrial disgrace and a menace to the rest of society when 
 labor unions can succeed in putting over policies which make all men on 
 a job earn the same amount and produce the same quantity, regardless of 
 individual differences in their ability. 
 
 Twin City Bricklayers 
 
 Thomas H. Preece, Vice-President of the International Bricklayers' 
 Union, said recently (quoted in *Brick and Clay Record, February 24, 1920) : 
 
 That the bricklayers, like "other classes of workmen * * * are not 
 producing that which they should produce for the money they are getting. 
 
162 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 * * * A good bricklayer can lay 1,400 to 1,600 bricks a day. When he he 
 done that he has done a good day's work." 
 
 Do you know that in the Twin Cities bricklayers are laying only 7C 
 to 800 bricks a day just half what one of their best known leaders say 
 they should lay? That's one of the things that makes home building s 
 expensive these days and because home building costs are prohibitiv 
 rents are going up to the sky. Twin City bricklayers get $1.25 an hour- 
 or $55.00 per week about $240.00 a month: In 1907 they got $19.20 
 week; their wages have increased 185 per cent. Yet to-day they produc 
 only half what they should! 
 
 Can Dishonesty Pay? 
 
 Manufacturers make a mistake and injure the public as well a 
 themselves if they retain out-of-date or wasteful plants and equipmen 
 Those who do so must, however, soon abandon their foolish and wasteft 
 policies or be forced out of existence by pressure from alert and up-to-dat 
 competitors. For labor to deliberately do less than that which it is pai 
 for doing is even more harmful to the public welfare. Labor is sellin 
 "fake" goods ; it is not giving an honest labor day for the wage it demand 
 and accepts. 
 
 After all, the question is not one of what is paid for wages but o 
 the service which is given in return. There is no desire to hurry men s 
 fast they will injure the quality of the product or impair their own healtl 
 And' the amount of work that can be done without such impairment ca 
 be scientifically determined. 
 
 The employer who agrees to pay the union rate of wages expects an 
 should receive the benefit of the full and unrestrained ability of th 
 worker. To-day he doesn't get this. The consequence is excessive cost 
 of production, which finally must be paid by the community ; you and 
 are the real sufferers because or organized labor's deliberate lessenin 
 of production. 
 
 Trade union autocracy, as sought in the United States by organize 
 labor, demands full power over our economic life; extreme wages, wit 
 no regard to service, quality or output; all these in absolute disregard c 
 individual and public rights all this is contrary to every principle fo 
 which our government stands. 
 
 Minimum Tasks Opposed 
 
 (Testimony of Mr. P. J. Conlon, vice-president of the Inter 
 national Association of Machinists, before the Industrial Rela 
 tions Commission, April 14, 1914. Objection to any minimur 
 task being set.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: What is the general attitude, if there is any, c 
 your organization on scientific management? 
 
 MR. CONLON : The best answer I could give you to that would b 
 to read an extract from our laws : "This association stands for th 
 abolition of the operation of more than one machine, piece-rate premiun 
 merit, task, or contract systems. Members who may be found guilt 
 of agitating or encouraging any of these systems in shops where it is no 
 in operation are liable to expulsion; and the practice in such shops sha 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 103 
 
 be entirely abolished as soon as possible the date to be set by the general 
 executive board." 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : If I understand that correctly, that would prevent 
 your men from working under any task system? 
 
 MR. CONLON : Yes ; there is no hope of redress at all, and they 
 will finally try to ruin the business of the employer. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Yes. Then the question is, after all, is it reason- 
 able or unreasonable, fair or unfair? 
 
 MR. CONLON: We object to a minimum task being set. 
 
 (Testimony of Mr. Roswell D. Tompkins, secretary-treas- 
 urer of the United Trade Business Agents of Greater New York, 
 before the Industrial Relations Commission, May 25, 1914. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : How do you interpret this rule which is part of 
 your by-laws : "Each and every member will be expected to do a 
 fair day's work, and if on any job it is the judgment of the other 
 members working on said job that any individual member who is found 
 working detrimental to the interests of other members on that job a 
 complaint must be filed immediately by the business agent against the 
 member complained of, and if found guilty shall be removed from the 
 job." 
 
 MR. TOMPKINS: The interpretation of that is this: A job might 
 be working with probably eight or ten men, probably for three or four 
 weeks, going along very nicely, and another new man is introduced on 
 the job. This man starts to speed it up, as they call it. Probably for 
 three or four weeks prior to the admittance of this man in on the job 
 everything has been going along very nicely, no fault found by either the 
 employer or the foreman, and this man starts out and probably will 
 put in a certain amount a day of work on the job, and it is found 
 out that he is getting probably fifty or seventy-five cents on the side 
 for doing it. Now, that is what that clause covers. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Well, assume that he is not being paid anything 
 extra on the side, but is working faster than your members think he 
 ought to work, he still would come within this rule, wouldn't he? 
 
 MR. TOMPKINS : He would come within that rule and, upon com- 
 plaint, be removed from that job. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Who decided whether he is working faster than 
 he ought or not, the local union? 
 
 MR. TOMPKINS: The local union the men on that job. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Does the manufacturer or contractor have any voice 
 in it? 
 
 MR. TOMPKINS: No voice in it at all. 
 
 The True Meanings and Value of Scientific Management 
 
 (From "The Price of Efficiency," by Frank Koester 1913. 
 Mr. Koester shows the real meaning of "scientific management," 
 answers the objections made by the closed shop unions, shows 
 how the present system of output restriction harms the workers 
 
104 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 and the public, and points out the benefits to both which greater 
 efficiency in effort will bring. This Association must not be con- 
 sidered as endorsing any of the specific plans, schemes, or outlines 
 of "scientific management" or "industrial efficiency" which have 
 been advanced.) 
 
 "Scientific management," a recent and high-sounding name given to 
 the common-sense policy of shop efficiency, is also bitterly opposed by 
 the labor unions. It amounts to a conservation of energy, and consists in 
 reducing the number and difficulty of the bodily movements necessary to 
 perform any given task. 
 
 Thus, a bricklayer, by standing in a certain position, having his bricks 
 placed on a platform at a selected level and adopting a certain sequence 
 of movements, can lay three times as many bricks in a day as one who 
 goes at his task in the usually inconvenient manner, and not be any more 
 fatigued by his work if as much. A house built in such a manner is 
 much less expensive than by the old methods, and were all houses so 
 built, rents would be greatly reduced. Yet the bricklayer can only see 
 the point that by producing three times as much work, he will be out of 
 work three times as quickly, and he therefore adopts the opposite plan, 
 restricting his output as much as possible. All other trades follow a 
 similar policy, for except on piece work, it is almost the universal custom 
 among workingmen. 
 
 If as a body they understood the advantages of efficiency, with the 
 consequent cheapening of products, and doubled their output, an enor- 
 mous effect would be produced. 
 
 If, for example, a million coats are made daily, and the makers 
 increased their product to two million without any additional cost of 
 labor, the cost of coats would be greatly cheapened. But if carried out, 
 practically half the coat makers would be thrown out of work, a calamity 
 more obvious than real, as they would be able to find work in other lines 
 while the coats of all would be cheaper, including their own. 
 
 In fact, for each worker, the consequent cheapening of coats for the 
 remainder of his life would be in itself more than compensation for the 
 loss of his position. 
 
 The same process applied to all trades would throw half the workers 
 out of employment sooner or later, depending on the time consumed in 
 arriving at the new condition. But though half the workers were thrown 
 out of work, the cost of living would be reduced to half its former figures, 
 so that the condition of the whole would not be any worse while the 
 necessity of women and boys under eighteen working would not exist. 
 The whole family of the laborer could live on his earnings, instead of, as 
 at present having to work to make up the industrial deficiency caused by 
 his ignorant attempt to get the best of his employer. 
 Why the Output Is Restricted 
 
 The labor unionist, however, will argue that if the worker doubles his 
 output, it will throw half of his fellow workmen out of work and that 
 the consequent over supply of labor will result in the unemployed half 
 competing with the employed half, with the result that all are re-employed, 
 but each at half the former wages to turn out twice as much in products 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 105 
 
 as before, not a pleasant prospect for the laboring man. Even admitting 
 that such would be the case, the cost of production would by this process 
 be reduced to one-fourth the present cost, for ultimately labor is the 
 only item that enters into the cost of any article of commerce. The cost 
 of living being reduced thus to one-fourth its previous figure, the worker 
 working for half his former salary would buy twice as much as it does 
 now. He would be twice as well off for the simple reason that he would 
 be doing twice as much work. The laborer cannot, considered as a body, 
 divest himself of the fruits of his toil any more than he can permanently 
 obtain a greater compensation than that to which he is entitled by natural 
 laws, no matter what scheme or device he employs. - 
 
 Consider on the other hand that the labor unionists were to be able to 
 obtain double their present wages for doing half as much work. The 
 cost of all products would be quadrupled immediately, but the wages of 
 the worker being only doubled, he would be in a position only half as 
 advantageous as at present. Some such process as this has taken place 
 in the last generation throughout the world. The workingman has become 
 filled with false ideas as to his rights and privileges and what his labor 
 entitles him to, and with everyone else, he is to-day reaping the bitter 
 harvest. Wealth is nothing but accumulated work and the more work 
 that the individual can do, the richer will be the world. By the not very 
 great addition to work of increasing its value a dollar a week, the wage 
 earners of the country in twelve months would produce value equivalent to 
 the entire fortunes of Morgan, Rockefeller and half a dozen other of the 
 richest men in the country, and give such an impetus to prosperity that 
 hard times would be a thing of the past for years. 
 
 No worker working for himself ever restricts his output. But the 
 worker imagines that in working for his employer he is working for 
 someone else. Such is not the case. The public is composed of the 
 public, not of strange gods or wealth devouring ogres, and work is always 
 wealth. The worker's living expenses are certain, and more or less fixed, 
 [f he works twice as much he produces twice as much value. It goes 
 somewhere. Into the pockets of capital, the laborer thinks, but this is not 
 the case. As little popular sympathy as it arouses, competition among 
 dollars for jobs is just as keen as among workers. Capital quickly flows 
 into new and profitable enterprises and deserts old ones. If a moving 
 picture theater makes money, a dozen others spring up to cut down the 
 profits of the first. If a foundry or a factory in a certain line is very 
 profitable, there is a rush to get into that business. Money is subject to 
 the laws of supply and demand just as labor is. Everyone wants money, 
 but few demand it so strongly as to pay 100 per cent interest. In fact 
 6 per cent is about the ordinary wages of money. The more money there 
 is, the lower the rate of interest. Capital thus measures its own return 
 by the amount of it in existence, the more capital the less return, just 
 as labor is measured, the more laborers, the lower the wage. 
 
 The worker who is apparently making his employer richer by working 
 twice as hard, is in reality working for himself, for although the employer 
 may temporarily become richer as an individual, it gives him money which 
 he must invest and throw into competition with money invested in other 
 
io6 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 business or in his own. If he enlarges his plant, the worker is surer o 
 employment. If some other manufacturer from some other field invade 
 the field, the worker has a choice of employers, he is in fact compete 
 for by the very wealth he has created in his own increased efforts. Th 
 enormous mass of fresh capital produced by a new point of view of th 
 worker would in competing with existing capital reduce the cost of necej 
 sities. The wage earner would thus be deriving the benefit, since hi 
 wages though not increased would have an increased purchasing power. 
 
 Capital has certain limits of profit, just as labor has. Each takes it 
 natural proportion in accordance with the relative amounts of each i 
 existence. Thus the worker, by more effective efforts, when he increase 
 the amount of money in other peoples' pockets, is improving his own con 
 dition by creating new purchasing power for his products, and is increas 
 ing his wages through reducing the relative returns to capital caused b; 
 his own efforts in bringing more capital into existence. He become 
 vastly more valuable to himself, to his employer and to the world thai 
 in his previous condition. 
 
 The Folly of Output Restriction 
 
 Yet practically throughout the world, especially in English-speakinj 
 countries, the worker restricts his output. The new system of "scientifi< 
 management" is violently opposed, yet it involves no more fatigue thai 
 present methods while producing much greater results. What it amount: 
 to is a study of the bodily movements with a view to eliminating thos< 
 which are superfluous or awkward, so that a worker at the end of a da] 
 has made no greater number of movements than ordinarily, and ha: 
 expanded no more strength, but his strength and his movements have beei 
 productive ones. Indeed, owing to the waste motions being eliminated 
 the amount of work done is often less. Even the housekeeper can intro 
 duce a little "scientific management" in the kitchen by the erection of i 
 new shelf to save steps, by sweeping with a certain motion or by allowing 
 the dishes to remain in hot water for a time before washing them. Scien- 
 tific management is merely common sense applied to the daily task. The 
 vast amount of wealth that dies still born in the factories of the worlc 
 every day is almost incalculable. 
 
 In the United States there are 7,017,138 wage earners in factories 
 according to the 1908 governmental report, "Earnings of Wage Earners.' 
 
 The census of manufacturers of 1905 reported 216,262 establishments 
 of which 19,679 reported no wage earners in employment, leaving 196,58;; 
 to be investigated in connection with the report on weekly earnings. The 
 returns from 72,880 of the establishments were so defective or unsatis- 
 factory that they could not be used. Of the remaining 123,703, or 62.9 per 
 cent of the whole number having wage earners, the reports enabled the 
 preparation of most interesting deductions. 
 
 The inquiry called for the segregation of wage earners according to 
 groups of actual earnings, and not rates of pay; and therefore the dis- 
 tribution gives the actual numbers that earned the specified amounts dur- 
 ing the week covered by the report. The terms "wages" and "earnings' 1 
 are frequently used synonomously. Earnings and not rates of wages, 
 either actual or other, are given in the report. The totals include piece 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 107 
 
 workers, and cover all branches of employment in the manufacturing indus- 
 tries of the country, exclusive of the office force. 
 
 Of the 3,297,819 wage earners covered by the investigation, 2,619,053, 
 or 79 per cent, were men, 588,599, or 17.9 per cent were women; and 
 90,167, or 2.7 per cent were children. 
 
 The pay rolls of the 123,703 establishments for the week covered 
 amounted to $33,185,791, and of this, men received $29,240,287, or 88.1 
 per cent; women, $3,633,481, or n per cent; and children, $312,023 or 
 nine-tenths of I per cent. 
 
 As each establishment was requested to report the actual number 
 employed during the week and the actual amount paid that number, it 
 should be safe to use the above totals to compute the average earnings 
 for the week. They give $10.06 as the average weekly earnings for all 
 classes of wage earners during the selected week, and $11.16, $6.17 and 
 $3.46 as the averages for men, women and children respectively. 
 
 The classification shows the concentration of men at the higher and 
 of women and children at the lower weekly earnings. More than one- 
 half (55.5 per cent) of all the wage earners received $9 and over per 
 week. Two-thirds (66.6 per cent) of the men received $9 and over for 
 the week, while only one-seventh (14.1 per cent) of the women were 
 paid at this rate. The children receiving $9 and over were so few that 
 they are included in the general tabulations with those receiving $8 and 
 over. 
 
 The greatest number of wage earners, namely, 464,875, make from 
 $12 to $15 per week, while some 132,064 make less than $3 per week. 
 
 Conserving Resources by Increasing Output 
 
 From a consideration of other tables given in this report, it is esti- 
 mated that about 3,000,000 wage earners are so employed that by the 
 adoption of intensive work, they could greatly increase their output. The 
 other wage earners are so employed that their output could either be but 
 slightly increased or not at all. But the output of the 3,000,000 could 
 readily be increased 50 per cent, and at the average wage of all factory 
 workers, approximating $9 a week, this would mean a saving of $2,340,000 
 a day or the vast total, figuring 300 working days in the year, of 
 $702,000,000. That is, there is that much money wasted in misdirected 
 efforts every year, by far a larger item than any that has been made in 
 any computation in reference to the conservation of the country's 
 resources. 
 
 The census of 1900 showed 29,287,070 persons, ten years of age and 
 over, as engaged in gainful occupations, and assuming that the average 
 weekly wage is $6, and omitting the 3,000,000 factory workers already 
 referred to, the application of intensive work to the extent of only 10 
 per cent, would mean an increase of sixty cents a week for 26,000,000 
 workers, or $2,704,000 a day. 
 
 In whatever employment the worker may be engaged, an increase of 
 10 per cent efficiency may be obtained, and in most cases very easily 
 obtained without any additional effort at all. In three hundred working 
 days, the 10 per cent increase would mean $811,200,000 which with the 
 factory increase mentioned, makes a total of $1,513,200,000. 
 
io8 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 This vast sum, that might be added to the wealth of the country 
 annually, would be like quarts of blood transfused into the veins of an 
 anaemic; where there is now financial lassitude, activity and vigor would 
 result; where credits are restricted and capital wanting, there would be 
 energy and prosperity. The attitude of antagonism the fact that some- 
 one else will become too prosperous, jealousy of the success of others 
 and particularly of those who are in the position of employers, brings 
 misfortune for all. 
 
 The man who devotes himself to schemes for preventing others from 
 making money, will never have the time to make much for himself. 
 
 Almost as bad as this grudging of effort in its costliness to humanity, 
 is the time lost in strikes, the most direct expression of the differences 
 between capital and labor. 
 
 The waste of grudging effort, or as is often the case, simply the 
 inefficient or "what's-the-use" failure of the worker to put forth his best 
 effort, lies in the feeling that no one else will do so. There is an utter 
 lack of co-operation and concerted effort. 
 
 A group of laborers tugging at a timber will not move it unless there 
 is a concerted effort. It is then moved with little trouble. 
 
 A method of introducing a concerted effort in intensive work needs 
 to be devised. If all workers knew that on a certain day all other work- 
 ers were going to put forth extra efforts, it would have the effect of 
 contagious enthusiasm, and even the most indolent would be "on the 
 job" on such a day. What the country needs thus, is a tuning up or 
 period of forcing, a time during which prodigious efforts are to be 
 made; after which the greater effort would become a habit, and the 
 previous method, a remembrance as of the dreaded tasks of childhood. 
 
 Perhaps the only time the whole country has engaged in a concerted 
 and prearranged effort, was the cessation of all activity for one minute at 
 the time of the funeral of President McKinley, when all transportation 
 and work was stopped. This had a great psychological effect. 
 
 . A concerted effort of this kind to initiate a new attitude towards the 
 day's work could not fail to have an enormous effect. 
 
 While such concerted action might prove an immediate expedient 
 and a starting point, a more permanent change of the point of view is 
 necessary. There must be systematic training. The right direction must 
 be given and the sense of responsibility to humanity made a part of the 
 technical training of all. 
 
 Each one should be taught to do his part for the sake of the rest of 
 the world as well as for hirnself. The spirit of mutual helpfulness on the 
 part of all concerned should take the place of animosity and jealousy. 
 
 Limitation in Practice 
 
 (Statement of Mr. Grant Fee, president of the San Fran- 
 cisco Building Trades Employers Association to the Industrial 
 Relations Commission. Pages 5310, 5311 of the record. Limita- 
 tions in a strong closed shop city.) 
 
 Far more serious is that sinister control which is at present being 
 exercised over foremen and members of various unions in the different 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 109 
 
 crafts, whereby these men are prevented from doing an honest day's 
 work for a reasonable wage. In other words, though a man of ordinary 
 ability in any craft is able to turn out a certain amount of work, 
 this secret agreement or understanding prevents him from turning 
 out that amount of work, and limits him to a lesser amount. 
 
 In proportion as this charge is a serious one should there be given 
 to it that grave consideration which it deserves. In our estimation enough 
 to warrant affidavits from the employers whose very business this system 
 tends to undermine. Take, for instance, the employers in the composi- 
 tion roofing, damp and water proofing business. 
 
 Exhibit No. I shows an attempt to adjust this matter of limitation 
 of output peaceably. This means having failed, a lockout of all the 
 roofing craft was declared by the master roofers and manufacturers' 
 association, under date of July 31, 1913. This matter was referred to 
 the building trades employers' association the employers controlling 
 body by the master roofers' association. (Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3.) 
 
 Exhibit No. 4 shows a report pf the investigating committee sent 
 out by the building trades employers' association. On August 13, 1913, 
 the agreement (Exhibit No. 5) was arrived at by conference between th'e 
 building trades employers' association and the building trades council. 
 A very short time afterwards it was found, however, that in spite of this 
 agreement the pernicious practice of limiting the output had not been 
 eliminated, and further questions arose between the employers and the 
 union which imposed hardship on the employers. (See Exhibits Nos. 
 6-14.) 
 
 A careful perusal of these exhibits will show that in spite of con- 
 tinued communications the limitation of output still prevails, together with 
 the other questions at issue, namely, the disrating of the foreman (the 
 employer's agent) by the union and unfair competition caused by union 
 men taking contracts which enable them to work below the scale which 
 the employer is forced to pay. Moreover, no employer is allowed to work 
 on the job himself, while the union man taking contracts is granted this 
 privilege. 
 
 From the affidavits filed with this brief, referred to herein, made a 
 part hereof, and marked respectively Exhibits Nos. 15-18, it will be seen 
 that since August 14, 1913, the foremen of these affiants have repeatedly 
 advised their employers that they dare not urge their men to do that 
 amount of work each day which could readily be turned out by a work- 
 man of ordinary ability in the craft. And why ? Because in these affidavits 
 it appears in many instances that, though made foremen by their employ- 
 ers, they are disrated by the union for attempting to get from their 
 men more work than that allowed by the secret understanding. And in 
 each of these affidavits it appears that the foremen advise their employers 
 that they are liable not only to be disrated, but will be fined, and probably 
 su/Ter, if persistent in their efforts to obtain from their men a fair amount 
 of work, physical violence. To your honorable body the reasons for not 
 setting forth the names of these foremen is obvious. This limitation of 
 output is no new thing, as evidenced by attached affidavit. (Exhibit 
 No. 19.) 
 
no OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Denial of Restriction Met by Facts 
 
 We may be met by the statement of our friends, the labor leaders, 
 that this pernicious habit of limitation of output is not sanctioned by 
 the Composition Roofers' Union, No. 25, nor by the building trades 
 council, the governing body in this jurisdiction. And they will point 
 with pride to the fact that when the matter was brought to their attention 
 in the months of July and August, 1913, they went on record as dis- 
 crediting such a practice. They will further tell you that the composi- 
 tion roofers' union (Local No. 25) denied on the floor of the council 
 that the union had even had such an agreement. And all this may be 
 true. One would hardly expect a union to go on record as limiting 
 the amount of work its members could do. Nevertheless all their denials 
 can not change the fact that in years gone by these same men did more 
 work for a day's wage than is now done, can not change the sworn state- 
 ments of employers of these foremen, intimately in touch with their 
 employes, who know what is going on, but dare not come into the open 
 for fear of violence at the hands of their fellow members. 
 
 The difficulty of obtaining reliable data upon the subject of secret 
 agreements to limit the output must of necessity be our excuse for not 
 presenting concrete instances of such agreements existing in each craft. 
 With this as our excuse we are presenting to you such evidence as we 
 can command relating to the limitations of output, first among carpen- 
 ters ; second, plasterers ; and third, upholsterers. 
 
 The best obtainable evidence that carpenters are careful not to over- 
 work is found on page 29, in section 53, of the By-Laws and Trade 
 Rules of the Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of 
 America, adopted April 2, 1913, a true copy of which section is annexed 
 hereto, made a part of hereof, and marked "Exhibit No. 20." It reads : 
 
 "Any carpenter can prefer charges against pace makers, and any 
 member found guilty of pace setting, or rushing members, with a view 
 of holding his job, and bringing up the other members employed to an 
 excess standard of speed shall be fined as per section 59." 
 
 It is submitted that no skilled laborer in San Francisco has even 
 ever been compelled to be a "pacemaker" to hold his job, and we read 
 the section it is but a flimsy cloak, carrying to its members a veiled 
 threat that will if they give the best that is in them for an adequate wage 
 they suffer as therein prescribed. 
 
 Further comment upon it would be an insult to the intelligence of 
 your honorable body. 
 
 With reference to the limitation of output among plasterers we have 
 but to say that we are creditably informed that plasterers or those 
 engaged in the mixing of lime are not allowed to mix over a specified 
 number of barrels in any one working day, irrespective of whether or 
 not the number allowed is a reasonable one. (Exhibit No. 19.) 
 
 (A letter of the National Roofing Company, Oakland, May 
 22, 1914, to the Master Roofers and Manufacturers' Association. 
 Printed on page 5326 of hearings before the Industrial Relations 
 Commission. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: Herewith I submit a question that I think is up to 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION in 
 
 our association to handle. About three weeks ago one of my foremen 
 and his entire crew were summoned before the union to which they belong 
 on a charge which was supposed to be conduct unbecoming to a union 
 man. The sum and substance of this charge is that the crew put on 
 more work than the secret agreement which the union has calls for. 
 
 They were tried and each member of our gang was fined five dollars 
 and the foremanship taken away from my foreman for a period of one 
 year. My foreman, Mr. E. O'Connell, took his case before the building 
 trades council and Mr. P. H. McCarthy informed him that he would not 
 sanction any rule which put a curtailment on work. 
 
 Then they called a meeting where our men and the representatives 
 of the union met at the building trades council last Tuesday evening. 
 The union claimed that they did not have any such law allowing so much 
 work to be done in one day, but the charge was that the work was not 
 done according to specifications, whereupon our foreman produced a 
 letter from the contractor on this work accepting the work and saying 
 that he was entirely satisfied in every respect. 
 
 Mr. P. H. McCarthy has a letter from our crew, signed by every 
 man that they were fined for exceeding the limit on a day's work. Hence 
 you can see how the matter stands. This matter has been put over and 
 we think it is up to your honorable association and wish you would 
 take action on same at once. 
 
 In order to assist you in the details in this matter ; on a separate paper 
 I am giving you the names of the men and job, etc., as follows: 
 
 Name of job: Stillwell; Contractors: Harris and Hudson; Location: 
 Fruitvale Avenue and Hopkins Street, Oakland. Crew: Foreman, Mr. 
 E. A. O'Connell; laborers, Mr. J. Finlon, Mr. Charles Latimer, Mr. C. 
 De Mussett. 
 
 Wages Should Be Based on Production 
 
 ( From an address by Charles N. Piez, president of the Link- 
 Belt Company, Chicago, before the Industrial Relations Associa- 
 tion of America, May 21, 1920. Wages should be based on 
 unhampered production, says M. Piez.) 
 
 I think the biggest charge that can be brought against organized 
 labor (and I talk now particularly of my own industry the metal trades 
 industry) is that for years it has been following methods of monopoly. 
 It has limited apprentices, has gradually reduced output, has attempted 
 to reduce hours, and at the same time limited in every way the rate of 
 production. 
 
 I recall some fourteen years ago, when a breach came, in our Chicago 
 plant we were making a six-inch case iron roller. The production on 
 that roller had been gradually dwindling and finally the shop steward 
 said that sixty of those six-inch rollers should constitute a day's work, 
 and so a full grown man,- then being paid current rates of wages per 
 day, was turning out sixty pieces a day. He had a tremendously difficult 
 job to appear busy doing that little work, and as we watched him we 
 argued with the shop steward about it. I finally said that we could 
 bring a green man into that place and that he could turn out one hundred 
 
H2 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 good rollers a day. Afterwards one man turtfed out one hundre 
 and eighty of those rollers and he is still doing it. This man's work ha 
 been written up by Miss Ida Tarbell. He is a stalwart fine fellow 
 there is no evidence of fatigue; there is no evidence that he is ovei 
 worked. 
 
 I cite this case to indicate that when we get normal productio 
 under the commands of an officer of union organization down to thirty 
 three and one-third per cent of where it belongs, it's time that some 
 body should ask some questions. 
 
 I think that a good deal of the present day unrest is due to th 
 fact that we have lost sight wholly of the relationship between produc 
 tion and wages. Personally, I have always felt that production was th 
 only sane basis for wages. And I recognize, too, that piece work, so-called 
 has been badly worked by some employers; worked to the disadvantag 
 of the men for many years, and I can appreciate very much why ther< 
 should be strong prejudice against it. 
 
 But after all, that does not set aside the fact that paying rates on th< 
 basis of production is the only common sense way of rewarding labor 
 I am perfectly willing that both sides should have a hand in deter 
 mining what the rates should be, but to deny absolutely the effort am 
 right to pay on a production basis, I think is economically unsound anc 
 is bound to lead to trouble in the end. 
 
 Typical Opposition to Labor-saving Machinery 
 
 (From article "The Stonecutters' Union and the Stone- 
 Planer,'' by Professor of Economics George E. Barnett, oi 
 Johns Hopkins University. Printed in the Journal of Political 
 Economy May, 1916. Typical union opposition to the introduc- 
 tion of labor-saving machinery.) 
 
 Machines for planing stone have been used for many years. The 
 original machines were simply iron-planers slightly reconstructed, and 
 were worked by a gear-and-rack drive. They were successful in planing 
 flaggings and other paving material for which a smooth surface was not 
 required, but could not be used on building material. About 1880 a new 
 type of planer was designed, in which a screw was substituted for the 
 gear-and-rack drive. A regular motion was thus attained, and the machine 
 became a practicable means of working building stone. 
 
 When the planers were first introduced much was said about the 
 injury they did to the stone, and it was asserted that planed stone soon 
 disintegrated. The strong desire of some of the workmen to discredit 
 the machines induced them to exaggerate the injury done. A writer in 
 the Stone Cutters' Journal for March, 1893, declared that the surface of 
 planed stone rotted and the projections fell off. It has long been under- 
 stood in the trade that planer-cut stone is fully as durable as that cut 
 by hand if the planing is properly done, but that the planer may be made 
 to run so deep as to "bruise" the stone. 
 
 The amount of labor saved by the use of a planer is difficult to 
 estimate, since the advantage over handwork is largely relative to the 
 class of stone and the kind of cutting. A single-platen planer of im- 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 113 
 
 proved type when engaged on the work in which the planer is most 
 superior to handwork will do about as much work in an hour as ten 
 stone cutters. The number of planers in use on building stone in the 
 United States in 1915 was about 1,000. Each of these probably does, 
 on an average, an amount of work which would require seven or eight 
 stone cutters. The stone-planers now in operation in the United States 
 on building stone, therefore, do the amount of work which would require 
 seven or eight thousand hand cutters. 
 
 Labor-Saving Machinery Reduces Prices 
 
 As in the case of all inventions of labor-saving machinery, except 
 where monopolized, the planer has brought substantial reductions in the 
 price of the commodity. 
 
 In the period since 1900 the use of other labor-saving devices besides 
 the planer has been extended in the stone trade. Pneumatic tools and 
 diamond pointed saws have taken over much of the stone cutter's work. 
 It may be roughly estimated that in 1900 there' were between 20,000 
 and 25,000 stone cutters in the United States. The labor-saving devices 
 now in the use of the trade, the greater part of which have been intro- 
 duced since 1900, do an amount of work which, at the lowest estimate, 
 would require the labor of 10,000 hand cutters. 
 
 Until 1895 the stone cutters did not concern themselves about the 
 planer. The number of planers in use was small, and they were to be 
 found chiefly at the quarries, where the stone cutters were either unor- 
 ganized or organized in independent local unions. The first impulse to 
 the formulation of a national policy was given by the attempts first to 
 control and later to prohibit the use of the planer, inaugurated in 1895 
 by the Chicago local union of stone cutters. 
 
 The use of planers in Chicago began about 1892. The local union 
 in 1895 asked unsuccessfully for the ^insertion in the agreement with the 
 Chicago cut-stone contractors of provisions limiting the hours during 
 which the machines were to be operated, and requiring that the planers 
 should be operated by union men. In January, 1896, the union insisted 
 that the planers should not run more than eight hours a day, and a 
 strike ensued. The strike was settled by an agreement made on April 15. 
 The planers were to be operated only eight hours per day and six 
 days per week, and the laborers employed as planermen were to be 
 replaced, in part immediately, and by degrees entirely, with stonecutters. 
 The union in return agreed not to work on any stone which had been 
 planed outside of Chicago, and to "keep out all stonework not planed or 
 cut in Chicago." 
 
 In 1898 the Chicago union demanded that for every planer operated 
 the contractor should employ at least four stonecutters with hammer and 
 chisel. The actual proportion in most of the yards was far below this, 
 and the contractors refused to accede. 
 
 After a strike of ten weeks a compromise was effected under which 
 the contractors agreed to employ two stonecutters for every single planer 
 and four stonecutters for every double planer. In January, 1899, the union 
 notified the contractors that they would not work after April i in any 
 yard where machinery, except saws and rubbing beds, was used. The 
 
ii4 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 contractors secured an extension of time to June I, but on that date 
 all the planers in Chicago stopped. The value of the machinery thrown 
 out of use was estimated at over $100,000. Planers were not used in 
 Chicago from June I, 1899, un til after the build-trades strike of 1900. 
 
 A number of branches of the General Union followed the example 
 of the Chicago union in imposing restrictions on the operation of the 
 planer. 
 
 During the period from 1896 to 1900 a beginning was also made by 
 the local organizations in another form of restriction ; the prohibition 
 of the shipment of planer-cut stone into cities where the local union was 
 opposed to its use. 
 
 Planer-cut stone has been excluded from some localities on the ground 
 that the working conditions at the shipping-point were inferior to those 
 at the place of erection, but about 1896 a number of branches in which 
 there were no planers began to exclude all planer-cut stone. 
 
 The opposition to the planer increased so rapidly that in January, 
 1900, the executive board of the General Union was called into session. 
 As a result of their deliberations, the members of the board determined 
 to add to the constitution of the General Union two new rules: (i) 
 "Planer work will not be permitted to be shipped into any city where 
 the union has succeeded in abolishing them;" (2) "Branches shall make 
 every effort possible to prevent the introduction of planers in their 
 jurisdiction." 
 
 Of the two new rules adopted, the rule restricting the shipment of 
 planer-cut stone was far the more important. It was modified from time 
 to time, but remained in force from 1900 until 1908. It will be con- 
 venient, therefore, to neglect the strict chronology of events, and, before 
 taking account of other rules relating to the planer, to trace the operation 
 of th^s rule through its entire history. 
 
 Intolerable Situation Caused by Union Attitude 
 By 1908 the situation had become intolerable. At a convention held 
 in that year sentiment was strongly against the continuance of the restric- 
 tion on the shipment of planer-cut stone. The majority of the "com- 
 mittee on the transportation of cut stone" recommended that the branches 
 should be forbidden to restrict the shipment of stone, provided wages and 
 hours at the shipping and the receiving points were equal. Certain 
 branches, however, notably St. Louis, complained bitterly that they had 
 been able to keep out planer-cut stone and that this rule would force 
 them to allow its introduction. Finally, the convention decided to repeal 
 entirely the rule relating to the transportation of stone, leaving it to each 
 branch to decide whether it would attempt to keep out planer-cut stone. 
 Since the rule of the General Union was repealed, a branch which 
 determined on a policy of exclusion could not expect the aid of the shipping 
 branches. The repeal of the rules relating to the shipment of cut stone 
 was ratified by a branch vote of 957 to 521. 
 
 The original policy of the General Union toward the planer, as has 
 been already noted, consisted of two parts : first, restriction of the 
 shipment of planer-cut stone, and, second, opposition to the introduction 
 of planers in places where they were not in use. At the session of the 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 115 
 
 General Union in 1900, when the first rule against the shipment of planer- 
 cut stone was enacted, the branches were urged to "make every effort 
 possible to prevent the introduction of planers in their jurisdiction." 
 If the rule against the shipment of planer-cut stone could have been 
 enforced, many branches would have struggled vigorously against the 
 introduction of planers. But where it was impracticable to keep out 
 planer-cut stone it was distinctly to the advantage of the branch to 
 have the contractors instal planers, since the members of the branch 
 got what the machine left of the home work, and, in many cases, of work 
 for the outside. Under such conditions, therefore, the branches did not 
 oppose the introduction of planers. 
 
 Although the national union at first confined its efforts to limiting 
 the extension of the field of the planer, its policy was soon enlarged by 
 rules relating to the operation of the planer. There were two of these 
 rules: (i) the rule restricting the number of hours a planer might be 
 operated: (2) the requirement that planermen should be stonecutters. 
 A third rule that a shop must employ a certain number of hand cutters 
 for each planer was also adopted by a number of branches, although it 
 never attained the dignity of a national rule. The first and third rules 
 were designed, like the rule against the shipment of planer-cut stone and 
 the rule against the introduction of planers, to check the displacement 
 of hand cutters, and it will, therefore, be convenient to consider these 
 two first. 
 
 In January, 1904, the National Cut Stone Contractors' Association 
 had been formed. One of the purposes of the new organization was to 
 protect its members against the stonecutters and particularly against the 
 restrictions on the use of machinery. In Chicago, and later in New York, 
 its members were closely allied with the dual stonecutters' unions; but 
 in other cities the members of the association employed stonecutters 
 who were members of branches of the General Union. At its second 
 session, in November, 1904, the National Association decided to offer 
 general resistance to all restrictions on the operation of the planers 
 and on the shipment of stone. It adopted the following resolutions, 
 which were to be posted in all the shops of its members: "First, that 
 we shall run our machinery without restrictions as to hours or as 
 to whom we shall employ to operate them; second, we shall cut and ship 
 cut stone without any restrictions as to the place or local conditions." 
 The adoption of these rules did not provoke a general conflict, chiefly 
 because at the time the membership of the association was small. As it 
 extended its influence, however, a series of engagements between the 
 General Union and the association occurred. 
 
 The introduction of the planer and other labor-saving devices has 
 led everywhere to considerable changes in the character of stone con- 
 tracting plants. The contractors have erected substantial buildings, 
 equipped with hoisting and other devices. The sheds are usually larger, 
 and, therefore, freer from dust, than formerly. Also, the seasonal fluc- 
 tuations in employment have been reduced, because the more substantial 
 sheds heated by steam have made winter work possible. These changes 
 have been due to the necessity of investing large sums in machinery and 
 
n6 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 the consequent desire to run the machines as nearly continuously as 
 possible. 
 
 Business Agents Tell Men to Loaf 
 
 (Effort of closed shop unions to increase production costs 
 to contractors and the public are revealed in the following from 
 the New Sky Line, Little Rock, March 13, 1920.) 
 
 "Killing the goose that laid the golden egg," is an old aphorism, used 
 to characterize the mistakes of people who destroy the foundation upon 
 which their well-beings rests. So it was with the Plumbers' Union last 
 November, when they loaded up their perfectly good contract with work- 
 ing regulations that the Master Plumbers would not accept, and then 
 broke their perfectly good contract and went out on a strike to enforce 
 the perfectly bad regulations. The bad regulations provided for addi- 
 tional time on plumbing work. No additional time was necessary. Noth- 
 ing had occurred to require increased time in which to do certain tasks. 
 The demand was a capricious one, no tangible reason existing. No mater- 
 ial profit or gain could accrue to the plumbers; no advantage to the 
 union. It was apparently an effort to prolong the time and increase the 
 cost to the contractors and the public, and delay the completion of work, 
 in order to make the plumbing work last longer, and thus increase the 
 volume of plumbing work in proportion to the manpower of the plumbers 
 or to coerce the contractors into raising the scale of wages before the 
 expiration of the contract then in existence. The contract had been made 
 June i, 1919, for one dollar per hour and an eight-hour day, the contract 
 extending to June i, 1920. The public is familiar with the time regula- 
 tions the business agent tried to put over on the Master Plumbers. The 
 business agent constituted himself .an interpreter of the regulations, and 
 undertook to direct how much time the workmen should devote to the 
 jobs in which they were assigned. His object was not to lower the cost 
 or increase the efficiency, but to lengthen the time and increase the cost 
 to the public. This is evidenced by an affidavit of one of the workmen, 
 a competent mechanic, with a disposition to be fair and honest. He was 
 not a regular attendant upon the union meetings, where the un-American 
 and Bolshevik regulations were born and propagated. He was a worker 
 who did an honest day's work for an honest day's wage; was willing to 
 deliver the goods, and wanted to be fair and just. The work in question 
 was a steam fitting job at the Christian Science Church, on Twentieth and 
 Louisiana Streets. William Peterson was the general contractor, and the 
 Pettit-Galloway Company had the steam fitting contract as sub-contractors. 
 D. B. Clark, a member of Union No. 155 was in their employ, and was 
 assigned to the work. The blueprints were given to him by the foreman 
 on November 17, 1919. After work hours he dropped in at the pool hall 
 on West Capitol, the Union headquarters. There he met Strode, the 
 business agent of Local No. 155, who asked to see them. He kept the 
 blueprints to look them over, returning them later. When Clark called for 
 the blueprints the next morning and went out on the work, he found a 
 card or piece of paper wrapper around them. On the papers was written 
 
OUTPUT RESTRICTION 1 1 7 
 
 "D. B. Clark; thirty-four days. Destroy this. Burn it." To be sure that 
 his directions were followed, he personally appeared on the job a few days 
 later. When Clark protested against putting in unnecessary time on the 
 job, the business agent used his everready weapon, the Union threat, and 
 told him if he did not put in thirty-four days on the job the local would 
 fine him. Clark failed to destroy the card on which the instructions were 
 written. He did not burn it. He worked six days and six hours, and 
 then had to stop on account of sickness. Before he recovered the Union 
 men went out on a strike, and refused to arbitrate, the business agent 
 claiming they were striking for a principle, and not more money, but 
 told the Master Plumbers that if they would agree to more money he 
 would waive the odious regulations. On December 29, Clark went back 
 on the same job, and completed it in workmanlike order, the full time 
 employed being twenty-one days, and says that if he had been a well 
 man he could have completed the work in seventeen days. This discloses 
 the kind of principle the business agent was striving to establish and main- 
 tain, and for which the journeymen plumbers, steam and gas fitters of 
 Local Union No. 155 went on a strike. Thus they "blew up," "killed the 
 goose that laid the golden egg," and found themselves out of employment 
 and facing the Open Shop and Square Deal, where no such Bolshevik 
 or un-American conduct is countenanced. (This is supported by an 
 affidavit from D. B. Clark.) 
 
 Our Lesson from England's Experience 
 
 During the war, trade union output restrictions threatened 
 to defeat England. Lloyd George, whose policy had always been 
 to throw his influence in favor of the unions, found it necessary 
 to personally beg the unions to suspend their rules and practices 
 so that production could be secured. In one of these appeals he 
 said : "If we had a suspension during the war of these customs 
 which keep down the output, we could increase it some places by 
 30 per cent, in other places by 200 per cent. Between 30 and 
 200 per cent well, you know that makes the difference between 
 victory and defeat." Matters in the field of production finally 
 reached an acute crisis which resulted in the celebrated agree- 
 ment between the government and the unions under which union 
 rules were suspended, non-union men and women were permitted 
 to be employed, and unskilled workers were permitted to be 
 placed upon unskilled .work which formerly union men had 
 arrogated to themselves. In other words and this is the first 
 lesson to be learned from the English experience England found 
 it necessary to lay aside the closed shop and to adopt the open 
 shop in order to save herself from defeat. In all its chief essen- 
 tials the agreement between the government and the unions by 
 
u8 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 which production was brought up to a proper level was an open- 
 shop agreement. 
 
 Is it not clear, in the light of England's experience, that 
 domination of our Government and control of our industries by 
 closed-shop unionism is a condition most destructive of national 
 preparedness for the exigencies of war? If the uneconomic and 
 destructive practices of closed-shop unionism are fastened upon 
 our industries, what will be the fate of our national hope for trade 
 expansion and trade supremacy ? 
 
 Typical Closed Shop Restriction 
 
 Testimony before a special investigating committee of the 
 Illinois legislature has revealed deplorable conditions in the union 
 controlled building industry of Chicago. Combinations such as 
 exist in New York City (see ChapterXVII) have been brought to 
 light. The following facts are typical of the testimony still (May 
 25, 1921) being offered to the commission: 
 
 Payment of $100,000 cash in the construction of Chicago's new Union 
 Depot as demanded by labor officials. 
 
 Material and labor from outside Chicago can be used only on the 
 payment of "subsidies" or "contributions" to union leaders. 
 
 Most theatre seats are made in open shops; the unions collect from $i. 
 to $5. a seat for their installation, under threat of strikes. 
 
 Sellers of furniture for new buildings wished to polish the furniture 
 after its installation. They were not allowed to use their own employes, 
 and a strike was threatened unless union painters were employed for the 
 work at $1.25 an hour. 
 
 Riveters employed in the construction of the Webster Hotel were 
 reprimanded by their union because they put in more than 250 rivets in 
 one day. 
 
 Cincinnati union painters are now attempting to force their 
 employers to accept rules limiting the width of paint brushes to 
 4^ inches and providing that painters may not carry over 5 
 pounds of paint at a time. 
 
OPEN SHOP EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION COMPARISONS 119 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 Open Shop Efficiency and Production Comparisons 
 
 This chapter will explain the manner in which efficiency of 
 open shop operation is greater than that in closed shops. As far 
 as possible it will make comparisons as to actual efficiency. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Walter Gordon Merritt, then 
 Counsel for the American Anti-Boycott Association, at present 
 counsel for the League for Industrial Rights, before the Indus- 
 trial Relations Commission, May 25, 1914. Mr. Merritt explains 
 the fundamental causes for increased operating cost in closed 
 shop plants.) 
 
 COM.MISSIONER GARRETSON : Are union shops less efficiently handled 
 than non-union? 
 
 MR. MERRITT: I think so, usually. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: In other words, a man that will deal 
 with the unions has his faculties impaired thereby or what? 
 
 MR. MERRITT: No, sir. The union is very apt to insist upon a voice 
 in matters of management you have taken from the employer who has 
 become the logical head by a process of selection, and so must be the 
 most capable of running the business, and the divided control results in 
 less efficiency. 
 
 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Is any human entitled to more voice in 
 his wage and the conditions of his service than the man who accepts 
 the wage and performs the service? 
 
 MR. MERRITT: Why absolutely; the employer is entitled to more 
 voice in certain things in the management of his business than the 
 employes who work under him and give the service. 
 
 MR. GARRETSON : The owner ? 
 
 MR. MERRITT: Yes, sir. 
 
 (From a monograph 'The Closed vs. The Open Shop," by 
 Ernest F. Lloyd, published by the National Industrial Conference 
 Board.) 
 
 As against the employer, the closed shop practically limits his per- 
 sonal selection of employes to a choice of union workers. These may 
 or may not be in his opinion suitable for the work in hand, or they may 
 be otherwise undesirable. Equally, the disciplinary power of the em- 
 ployer is curtailed or abrogated and his methods of compensation regu- 
 lated. These limitations may so increase the cost of production and the 
 bazards of operation that the employer may be subjected to unsustainable 
 financial loss. 
 
 (From "The Closed Shop in American Trade Unions," by 
 Dr. Frank T. Stockton. Published by Johns Hopkins Univer- 
 sity, 1911. Pages 174 and 175.) 
 
 To sum up the arguments against the closed shop on the ground 
 
I2O OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 that it affects unfavorably the economic conduct of industry, it may be 
 said that the crux of the question is whether or not the "right to hire 
 and discharge" is unduly restricted under the closed shop. The employer 
 may enjoy the use of a valuable label and may be placed on a "fair 
 competitive basis" with other employers. Individually the employer may 
 reap a gain. But in the long run industry will be carried on less 
 efficiently if by waiting lists or other restrictive devices the union inter- 
 feres with the employer's hiring and discharging his working force in 
 accordance with his best judgment. Similarly, a "closed union" restricts 
 the employer in his choice of workmen. In those unions in which such 
 practices exist the closed shop is to be condemned in that it is only 
 through the device of the closed shop that waiting lists and arbitrary 
 restrictions on membership can be made workable. 
 
 Computing Operating Costs 
 
 Mr. Harvey A. Patterson, president of the National Associa- 
 tion of Merchant Tailors, prepared the following statement 
 for the Open Shop Bulletin. This statement answers the claim 
 that closed shop employers benefit by being able to compete 
 because of equal wage and other conditions. 
 
 The open shop or American plan permits of greater efficiency in 
 the merchant tailoring industry especially in the fine trade, as the journey- 
 men work on the piece system which enables the merchant to estimate 
 his costs accurately and gives the worker greater opportunity to reap 
 the reward of his labors, particularly if he is competent and ambitious. 
 The weekly wage system imposed upon a small group of merchant 
 tailors in this city by the union, at the same time the trade at large made 
 such a game and successful fight for its industrial freedom and established 
 the open shop, has practically demoralized the entire manufacturing 
 methods of the unionized firms, and they cannot compute costs to any 
 degree of certainty. The amount of production cannot be estimated 
 even, there being no guarantee by the workers as to how much work 
 they shall do, and of course, the number of garments turned out under 
 those conditions, and in accordance with union theories, is kept down to 
 the minimum. 
 
 Under the open shop plan, the more prominent and successful mer- 
 chant tailors see some hope of getting their selling prices down through 
 increased efficiency. Under union control, however, there is no possible 
 chance, and the merchant tailor today who is tied up to a union agree- 
 ment faces absolute ruin. 
 
 Benefit of Scientific Production 
 
 (From Pamphlet No. 3, March i, 1920, of the Associated 
 Industries of Tacoma. This points out the benefits to the employer 
 of scientific output, which closed shop unionism opposes.) 
 
 When we say that the price of labor is seventy-five cents we do not 
 know what this means. There are measures or quantities by which to 
 sell goods or real estate, but when it comes to buying labor we have no 
 
OPEN SHOP EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION COMPARISONS 121 
 
 measure nor can we estimate its value by personal observations except 
 after the labor is done, which is long after the so-called bargaining took 
 place and long after the price was set. It is true that labor is sold by 
 the hour, but the hour is a measure of time and not of labor. We might 
 just as well sell eggs by the yard and without even specifying whether 
 we lay them lengthwise or crosswise. 
 
 With the piecework system, the employer knows exactly what he 
 will get for his money, but the employe makes a guess as to how much 
 he can reasonably do. He has no control over the conditions which 
 will enable him to do or prevent him from doing as much as he is 
 expected to. 
 
 There are various kinds of bonus systems. The employe may earn his 
 regular wages and get a bonus at stated intervals if his work exceeds the 
 expectations of his employer. Then there is the task and bonus plan, 
 in which case there is less guessing and more of an attempt at a definite 
 bargain. The success of this plan rests upon the earnestness of the 
 employer with which such a system, and whether or not he sees to it 
 that it is possible for the employe to fulfil his task, in which event this 
 system approaches quite closely to true bargaining. 
 
 The premium system is an attempt to gain the interest of the employe 
 to make him invent improvements in the method of working and sharing 
 the profits with him. 
 
 This, however, requires careful study of time, conditions of ma- 
 chinery and tools, and may lead to controversies and injustices. 
 
 Open Shop Increases Production 
 
 Under date of November 2, 1920, the Manufacturers' Bureau, 
 of .the Civic and Commercial Association, of Denver, informed 
 us that the street car strike there last summer "was in fact a battle 
 for the open shop." At the present time "the tramway system is 
 being operated efficiently on an open shop basis." 
 
 November 15, 1920, the New York Herald printed a number 
 of telegrams from various cities as to the success of the open shop. 
 Some of these were shortened. Several extremely interesting 
 sentences were omitted from the telegram of the Associated 
 Industries of Seattle. 
 
 Workingmen have seen it to their interest to work on the open shop 
 plan regardless of union affiliation, which they have or have not main- 
 tained, each man according to his individual desire * * * industrial 
 relationships were never better here, and sound industrial conditions are 
 offered new industries. In the late election the radicals were snowed 
 under. The Associated Industries, with two thousand firms as members, 
 is not out to smash labor unions, but to bring harmony and industrial 
 "peace. Production increased as much as 35 per cent, in case of long- 
 shoremen. 
 
122 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 The Citizens Alliance of Minneapolis informed us on 
 December 4, 1920: 
 
 One of the largest retail furriers who conducts a fairly good sized 
 shop, stated a few days ago that since they had declared for the open 
 shop their efficiency has increased tremendously and that for the first 
 time they are really happy in their work. 
 
 The newspapers of Aberdeen, South Dakota, about two 
 months ago established the open shop. Mr. J. H. McKeever, 
 publisher of two daily papers, wrote as follows under date of 
 December 28th, 1920: 
 
 We are gaining vastly in increased efficiency. I was told the other 
 day by our superintendent that we were getting at least one-fourth more 
 work than during the old regime. The wage scale has not been reduced 
 nor is it likely to be, but we are getting for the same amount of money 
 much more work and conditions in the composing and press rooms are 
 more harmonious and pleasant. 
 
 The causes leading up to our adoption of the open shop policy was 
 our desire to free ourselves from the unreasonable and unfair, as well 
 as uncertain domination of our business by men controlling the union, 
 though they formed so small a proportion of the employes in our plant. 
 
 A letter of January 5, 1921, from the Buffalo Commercial state's 
 their open shop linotype operators average 52,000 ems in eight 
 
 hours, as compared with 28,000 in closed shop plants: 
 
 
 
 The average printer in a unionized office is permitted to deliver only 
 40 to 50 per cent, of his normal productive capacity. * * * Our ex- 
 perience has been such as to justify us in believing that where operators 
 are employed on a piece-work basis wherein they receive a pro rata com- 
 pensation for such production as they deliver over and above the union 
 maximum, that their weekly wages would easily average 75 per cent, 
 above the basic rate <paid. 
 
 The Standard Pattern Company of North Tonawanda, New 
 York, informs us in a letter of January 13, 1920, that on March 
 6, 1920, they abandoned the closed shop. 
 
 After a few adjustments we found that the men were more congenial 
 and turned out 20 per cent, more work than under the closed shop 
 conditions. 
 
 The 1920 annual report of the Dallas Chamber of Commerce 
 says: 
 
 The open shop movement in Dallas has increased labor efficiency, 
 making possible Dallas' present reputation as one of the nation's highest 
 wage cities. The increased labor efficiency, furthermore, more than off- 
 sets the increased wages, insofar as the cost of the finished product is 
 concerned. 
 
OPEN SHOP EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION COMPARISONS 123 
 
 President Levy, of the Pacific Coast Association of Merchant 
 Tailors, writes in the October, 1920, bulletin of the National Asso- 
 ciation : 
 
 If I were to say that our Open Shop Association is wonderful I 
 would be putting it mildly. It has brought results. First of all, production 
 is far greater than before on the Pacific Coast, and with the same 
 number of men, which naturally reduces the cost of making, giving us a 
 reasonable figure to sell clothes at a fair price. 
 
 Comparative Production Figures 
 
 These are not easy to obtain, for obvious reasons, but the 
 instances cited are sufficiently numerous to demonstrate beyond 
 any reasonable doubt the superiority of open shop operation. 
 
 During the war the Construction Division of the United 
 States Army was employing members of the Philadelphia Brick- 
 layers' Union. They received eighty-seven and one-half cents 
 per hour; they demanded $1.25 an hour, contrary to the Govern- 
 ment's agreement with the union, threatening to strike if the 
 demand was not granted. The demand was refused and they 
 were told to leave. The army officials then heard of a Quaker 
 community near Harrisburg, where there was said to be a group 
 of bricklayers under the leadership of a Quaker elder. After 
 four days' search the community was found and the bricklayers 
 brought to Philadelphia. The union men averaged 600 bricks a 
 day each; the Quaker bricklayers, on the same kind of work, laid 
 1,200 bricks a day. Yet the unions claim to have all the efficient 
 workmen, and that they do not restrict the amount of work a man 
 may do. 
 
 (Statement of the Franklin Printing Trades Association, 
 September I, 1914, to the Industrial Relations Commission. Page 
 5301, of the record.) 
 
 At this date there are employed in the pressooms of the Franklin 
 Printing Trades Association about 280 people, thirty of whom are mem- 
 bers of the pressmen's and assistants' unions. 
 
 The efficiency of these pressrooms under present conditions rank 
 higher in most instances than it did under union conditions. In some 
 cases the hour cost has been reduced from 25 per cent to 40 per cent, 
 although wages have not been reduced in any case. 
 
 This is accounted for by several factors: 
 
 Limitation of output, so prevalent under union conditions, is prac- 
 tically unknown at this time. 
 
 Unfair and unreasonable shop rules, all tending to reduce output or 
 to cause the employment of unnecessary help have been eliminated. 
 
 The hiring and discharging of pressroom help is now vested in 
 
124 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 the proprietor. Under union conditions any workman who applied for 
 a position to the proprietor rather than to the foreman was disciplined 
 by the union. This disciplining was done under section n, article 13, 
 of the Constitution, By-Laws, and Rules of Order of San Francisco 
 Printing Pressmen's Union, No. 24, 1907, which reads as follows : 
 
 "Sec. ii. The foreman of the pressroom is the proper person to 
 whom applications should be made for a situation, and any member 
 who shall seek employment either in person or by letter, or through sup- 
 ply houses, from any proprietor who has a union foreman in his press- 
 room, shall be fined ten dollars on first offense and shall be expelled on 
 second offense." 
 
 None but union foremen could be employed. 
 
 This custom or rule enabled the union to say absolutely who should 
 or should not work in the pressroom of any plant; it likewise enabled 
 the union officials to discipline any firm against whom they had a grievance, 
 apparent or real, by sending to such firm only inefficient help. 
 
 In most plants the greater interest taken by the employes in their 
 work and their greater desire to advance the interests of the proprietor 
 are very manifest. 
 
 Output Comparisons 
 
 (From a statement to the Industrial Relations Commission 
 by the manager of the Los Angeles Times, operating chiefly with 
 independent workers. On page 5888 of the record.) 
 
 On the stand, when delivering that part of my statement which 
 relates to linotype machine work, that is to say, composition by the piece 
 and by the hours, respectively I boldly made the claim that the former 
 system possesses distinct advantages both for the workmen and for the 
 office. I declared that piece operators, working in rivalry with time opera- 
 tors the one class in the non-union Times office and the other class in a 
 leading "closed shop" union office in California when working under 
 the like conditions in other respects, the results demonstrate conclu- 
 sively that the Times operators are able to show, and do show, distinct 
 gains over the other class in the vital matter of production and earnings. 
 I declared that our linotype piece operators averaged from $5.50 to $7.50 
 per night of seven hours, as against the union time scale and rate of 
 $5.50 for eight hours. Now, to prove my claim I offer a comparison of 
 figures covering actual results under both systems. 
 
 Comparison and results. Here is a comparison of composition-room 
 costs in the two newspaper offices referred to, operating under the two 
 different systems named, the comparisons being for the week ended August 
 30, 1914. The totals show these striking results: 
 
 Los Angeles Times (non-union) : Number of columns of matter set, 
 1,820; number of workmen engaged, 62; total labor cost, $2,281.65 ( J 7 
 men working on the regular seven-hour basis and 45 men on an eight-hour 
 basis); average labor cost per column, $1.25; average earnings per man, 
 $36.80 for the entire week. Now for the contrast: 
 
 Another California newspaper ("closed shop") : Number of columns 
 of matter set, 1,473; number of workmen, 68; the total labor cost, $2,363.25 
 
OPEN SHOP EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION COMPARISONS 125 
 
 (all the men working on an eight-hour basis) ; average labor cost per 
 column, $1.60; average earnings per man, $34.75 for the entire week. 
 This is a contrast and a demonstration that can not be successfully 
 challenged, nor can the facts be gainsaid. They prove our contention 
 that the piece-rate basis for linotype machine work results in a larger 
 production with a less number of men and machines and in higher 
 wages per man, coupled with lower cost to the office and greater efficiency. 
 
 (From a letter of Mr. T. E. Donnelley, president of R. R. 
 Donnelley & Sons Co., with printing establishments in Chicago 
 and Indianapolis, to the Industrial Relations Commission, October 
 20, 1914. On page 3457 of the record.) 
 
 Concerning the comparative costs of product under union and non- 
 union conditions, it is impossible for us to compare present costs when 
 we are running closed shop, as our cost systems are entirely different 
 and the wage scale has been materially increased during the last few 
 years. In comparing our plant in Chicago, which we run under open 
 shop, and our plant in Indianapolis, which is run under union conditions, 
 the costs on one. item of composition vary as to 3,850 to 4,050 in favor 
 of the Chicago house. 
 
 Also, in regard to hand folding, the efficiency per 'hour in Chicago 
 is about 25 per cent higher than in the Indianapolis plant. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. J. Bruce Gibson, then president 
 of the Federation of Employers' Associations of the Pacific 
 Coast, before the Industrial Relations Commission, August 13, 
 1914. 
 
 The restriction of output is one of the bad features of union organ- 
 ization, and is illustrated in manufacturing costs. I have here a copy 
 of some items in our plant, showing the difference in cost of operation 
 during the closed shop seven years ago, or eight years ago, when we 
 had a union foundry and an open shop as at present. This is on standard 
 machinery of which we have a number of recurrences, and also as taken 
 from our records. 
 
 Shingle machine, 26-inch saw collars, 6 as union; as open shop, 12. 
 I will say to illustrate this that when the molder was on this work and 
 tried to make 7, the steward in the shop stopped him. Shingle mill gears 
 4 to 10; friction pulleys, 3 to 6; main frames, i to 2; track, i as union 
 shop and 2 and some small work as open shop; pulleys, 24 x 12, i to 2, 
 and some small work as, open shop; pulleys, 24 x 12, i to 2 and some 
 small work. 
 
 In making pulleys, we make them as the orders come in. During 
 closed shop, one man and a helper set up 36 by 10 and 24 by 10 that 
 is, as closed shop. As open shop, the same men, or the same class of labor 
 set up 24 x 10, two 1 8 by 11, and two 16 x n, a total of 9 pulleys with 
 practically the same labor, as against two under the closed shop. 
 
 Spur-iron frictions, 36 x 6, one under closed shop, and three under 
 open shop. 
 
 Those are the records as we have them in our works. 
 
126 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Testimony Before War Labor Board 
 
 (The following facts concerning comparative efficiency in 
 open and closed shop plants were brought out in a hearing before 
 the National War Labor Board, just following the signing of the 
 Armistice in 1918, in the case of International Molders' Union, 
 Local No. n, vs. Rochester Founders, Inc. The testimony was 
 not disputed. Mr. Keough and Mr. Drew were the attorneys 
 for the union and founders, respectively.) 
 
 In questioning Mr. Willsea regarding the greater output of 
 the Railway Signal Company, an open shop, than that of the 
 Northwest Foundry, a closed shop, the following occurred: 
 
 MR. KEOUGH : Q. Then why don't the manager of the Northwest 
 get the same amount of work per man as the manager in the Signal? 
 
 A. I could tell you very readily. 
 
 MR. DREW: Tell him.. He asked you the question. 
 
 MR. KEOUGH : Q. I ask you to tell me. 
 
 A. He has nobody to tell him how much work he can do. * * * 
 
 MR. KEOUGH : That is all. I am . through. 
 
 MR. DREW : Q. What do you mean by saying that nobody tells him 
 how much work'he can do? 
 
 A. They have no shop committee to tell him how much he can do. 
 
 Q. You mean a union shop committee? 
 
 A. Yes. (R. 143.) 
 
 Mr. Keough, in cross-examining the employers' witness, Mr. 
 McHenry, a superintendent at the Gleason Works, endeavored 
 to show that poor rigging and lack of equipment was responsible 
 for the comparative low output. The witness is a member of the 
 union. The following occurred: 
 
 Q. And you feel if the rigging is given you, and the flasks and 
 equipment, that you can turn out as much work as the ordinary foundry 
 foreman ? 
 
 A. We have as good rigging in our shop as any other, but we don't 
 get one-third of the work. 
 
 Q. I want to bring out the point here if I can that you are a com- 
 petent foreman. 
 
 MR. DREW: Well, we concede that. 
 
 MR. KEOUGH : Q. And that, as such, if you are given the same 
 facilities for turning out the work, that you can do as well as an average 
 foreman. 
 
 A. I answered that. We have the records in our shop that we have 
 not turned out as much. 
 
 MR. DREW : Q. I will ask you if lack of equipment is the reason for 
 the failure of the Gleason Company to turn out as much as the Elyria 
 Foundry ? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. What is the reason? 
 
OPEN SHOP EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION COMPARISONS 127 
 
 A. The men are restrained. They are told "This is a day's work." 
 (R. 207, 208.) 
 
 The following comparisons in output efficiency between the 
 Elyria Foundry Company of Elyria, Ohio, an open shop con- 
 cern, and the closed shop establishments in Rochester, were 
 submitted. They are typical of many similar comparisons pre- 
 sented. 
 
 (a) Pattern Head Block (R. 125, 174). Rochester: 3 molders 
 produced 6 pieces in i day. 
 
 Elyria : I molder and I helper produced 7 pieces in I day. 
 
 (b) Pattern Face Plate (R. 126). Rochester: i molder produced 
 i in 2 days. 
 
 Elyria : i molder produced i in i day. 
 
 (c) Pattern Tooth Rounder Base (R. 126, 127, 200). Rochester: 
 i molder and i helper produced i in 2 days. 
 
 Elyria: I molder and i helper produced i in i day. 
 
 (d) Pattern Carriage (R. 128). Rochester, 2 molders and i helper 
 produced i in i day. 
 
 Elyria : i molder produced i in i day. 
 
 (e) Pattern Carriage No. A-3027 (R. 128). Rochester: i molder 
 produced 2 in i day. 
 
 Elyria i molder produced 3 in i day. 
 
 (f) Pattern Carriage No. 8-128 (R. 129). Rochester: i molder 
 produced 2 in i day. 
 
 Elyria: i molder produced 3 in i day. 
 
 (g) Pattern-^Carriage No. 8-129 (R. 129). Rochester: i molder 
 produced 2 in i day. 
 
 Elyria: i molder produced 3 in i day. 
 
 Comparison was made as follows, between the Willsea 
 Works, one of the closed-shop employers, and American Wood- 
 working Machinery Co. of Rochester and Swett Iron Works of 
 Medina, N. Y., both open shops. 
 
 Pattern C. and B. No. 6001 (R. 120, 136). 
 
 The Willsea Works: i molder produced i piece in 5 hours; labor 
 cost, $2.92; 
 
 American Woodworking Machinery Co. : produced same piece on piece 
 work at cost of seventy-five cents each; 
 
 Swett Iron Works : r molder produced 4 larger pieces of same type 
 in i day. 
 
 Low Production Costs in Open Shops 
 
 (From the Los Angeles Sunday Times, January 23, 1921. 
 Why industries go to Los Angeles on account of open shop condi- 
 tions and lower production costs.) 
 
 The change of Pacific Coast headquarters from San Francisco to Los 
 Angeles on the part of the Austin Company, one of the largest building 
 
128 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 and construction concerns in the United States, is one more of the accum- 
 ulating evidences that the Coast supremacy of this city is based on sound 
 consideration. Enterprise has added the economic stability to the natural 
 resources and climatic attractions. 
 
 The Austin Company, with general offices at Cleveland, is one of the 
 country's leading and best-known construction organizations, specializing 
 on and confining its field to the erection of large factory buildings. This 
 specialization has enabled the Austin Company to develop a standardized 
 system of factory construction, which has become popular under the name 
 of "Austin Standard Industrial Buildings." 
 
 Superior local conditions largely influenced the determination of the 
 company to make Los Angeles its Pacific Coast base, as related to a rep- 
 resentative of The Times by John Harnish, Pacific Coast manager. 
 
 "The Austin Company, working under conditions of Los Angeles cli- 
 mate, Los Angeles free labor through the open shop, Los Angeles building 
 laws antiquated and unsuited to the demands of so great a city as some 
 declare, but administered and enforced without interference of walking 
 delegates and business agents of restrictive unions; working under these 
 conditions and the accessibility of material either by local production or 
 adequate transportation, the plant of the Rich Steel Products Company 
 was completed and ready for occupancy in seventy-five days from the 
 time it was begun. 
 
 "Contrasted with this record is another factory building contracted 
 by the same Austin Company for another industry, for erection in the Bay 
 district and begun before the work on the Rich plant was started and not 
 as large nor as difficult as the Rich plant. Working under Bay district 
 conditions of closed shop, obstructive labor unions and collusive officials, 
 some of whom are now under indictment; Bay district* conditions or ob- 
 structive pooling among the construction contractors with 'rings' of inter- 
 ference with individual rights, this contract has just been completed after 
 working on it a full year, whereas, there was no natural reason why it 
 should not have been finished in less time than the Rich plant." 
 
 Open and Closed Shop in the Building Trades 
 
 (Results of inquiry made by the Open Shop Department. 
 National Association of Manufacturers.) 
 
 The aim of this inquiry is to determine the relative benefits 
 to employers in the building trades of the plans of industrial 
 operation termed "Open" and "Closed" Shop. The meaning of 
 these terms is too well known to need explaining. 
 
 With the exception of the printing trades no industry is more 
 dominated by the closed shop idea and practice. Nevertheless, 
 within the past year there have been many communities, which 
 have broken away from union domination in the building trades. 
 
 This move has been caused by ( I ) A general feeling among 
 employers that it was time to call a halt to the restriction of pro- 
 duction, restrictive rules, and jurisdictional disputes which charac- 
 
OPEN SHOP EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION COMPARISONS 129 
 
 terized union domination. (2) A realization that public sentiment 
 would support them. (3) And by a knowledge of the existence 
 of such facts, as have been disclosed by the Lockwood committee. 
 List (probably not complete) of towns in which open shop 
 building conditions generally prevail. Detroit, Toledo, Little 
 Rock, Dallas, Buffalo, Indianapolis, Butte, Atlanta, Twin Falls, 
 Salt Lake, Florence, Omaha, Seattle, Miami, Minneapolis. 
 
 Comparative Efficiency 
 
 The following statements indicate in nearly all cases an im- 
 provement in efficiency following open shop operation. They 
 will, it is believed, be found of great interest. 
 DETROIT 
 
 Chester M. Culver, Manager of Detroit Employers' Association: 
 "Even the building trades are generally open shop. * * * 
 "The workman is permitted to earn according to his productive 
 capacity. Detroit has established productive records in many lines." 
 BUTTE 
 
 Master Builders' Division, Associated Industries of Butte: 
 "The year 1920 witnessed building under open shop conditions." 
 The Manager of the Associated Industries of Montana writes: 
 "All construction work in Butte since January, 1920, has been under 
 the Anierican Plan. However, we did not obtain statistics as to relative 
 efficiency~bT^workers since January i. The main advantage to us has 
 been the doing away of some objectional working rules of the unions." 
 SEATTLE 
 
 The Associated Industries of Seattle, says: 
 
 "The loss of the building trades and other strikes broke the influence 
 of the radicals. 
 
 "Seattle workers are sticking to their jobs, and general efficiency has 
 shown an increase rather than a decrease. Union men are working along- 
 side non-union men in a number of Seattle industries which were one 
 hundred per cent union three months ago." 
 DALLAS 
 
 Dallas Chamber of Commerce. Open Shop Square Deal Association: 
 "Increased efficiency keeps wages up. Building permits have increased 
 40 per cent over the same period last year. There have -been no strikes in 
 the building industry for one year, something unheard of before the estab- 
 lishment of the open shop association. 
 
 "In August of a total of 210 building permits $409,050 was to be 
 under the open shop and $207,400 under the closed shop." 
 
 The Southwestern Open Shop Association, with headquarters in Dallas, 
 says: 
 
 "We have demonstrated beyond question that construction on an open 
 shop basis is efficient and less costly than when conducted as under closed 
 shop contracts." 
 ATLANTA 
 
 Employers' Association of Atlanta: 
 
130 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 "Ninety per cent of $3,500,000 worth of present building construction 
 is on the open shop basis. The largest contracting firm here reported 
 after one month of the open shop 25 per cent increase in production and 
 increase in wages." 
 
 LITTLE ROCK 
 
 We read in the October 18 bulletin of the American Open Shop Asso- 
 ciation of Quincy, Illinois : 
 
 "The building trades council of Little Rock has gone out of existence, 
 disbanded, given up the ghost and the business agent, Robert Pettifor .has 
 departed for other fields where the people are still not 'hep' to 'business 
 agents/ Less than one year of open shop in Little Rock and the strongest 
 union combination in that city, including the painters, plasterers, carpen- 
 ters, bricklayers, electricians and all allied crafts, now recognize the open 
 shop and work side by side with non-union men. Incidentally, production 
 per man has increased, and Little Rock is putting on a building campaign 
 as a result." 
 
 Says The New Sky Line, published by the Open Shop Bureau of the 
 Little Rock Board of Commerce, in its issue of October 23: 
 
 "The union shops in the building trades brought about their own 
 destruction. They made themselves unbearable, and the business public 
 upon whom they were dependent organized the open shop campaign and 
 said they would have no more of them. That was the beginning of the 
 end." 
 
 Undef date of December 16, 1920, the Open Shop Bureau of the Little 
 Rock Board of Commerce informs us : 
 
 "We have just completed a partial survey of the building conditions 
 in the City of Little Rock, taken from reports of six of our leading con- 
 tractors who state that the efficiency and output under the open shop plan 
 has increased approximately twenty-five per cent. 
 
 "These reports were compiled from actual figures taken from the 
 books of the contractors making reports." 
 
 TWIN FALLS 
 
 Twin Falls, Idaho, building since the first of 1920 has been open shop. 
 During the first six months of 1919 (closed shop), there were 99 permits, 
 representing, structural cost of $446,950; during the same period for 1920 
 there were 258 permits representing $799,840 structural cost. The head 
 of the open shop movement in Idaho, informs us that there is in his 
 opinion an average increase of 30 per cent, in the efficiency of workers, a 
 very large part of which, but not all of it, can be attributed to the 
 inauguration of the open shop. 
 
 SALT LAKE 
 
 The Manager of the Utah Associated Industries writes, concerning the 
 effects of the controversy as a result of which open shop building condi- 
 tions now prevail throughout the state as follows : 
 
 "It is the consensus of opinion among the contractors, that the effi- 
 ciency of the employes is on the increase." He also refers to "the added 
 efficiency of employes under the American Plan." 
 
OPEN SHOP EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION COMPARISONS 131 
 
 NORFOLK 
 
 The Builders and Contractors Association of Norfolk, Virginia, writes : 
 "About 80 per cent of the work in Norfolk in the building industry is 
 
 operated under the open shop. We have had practically no labor troubles 
 
 since our declaration for the open shop, and the majority of our members 
 
 have expressed entire satisfaction with same." 
 
 FLORENCE 
 
 The Contractors of Florence, Alabama, say that since the establish- 
 ment of the Open Shop they have more and better workmen than ever 
 before. 
 OMAHA 
 
 We understand that building in Omaha is mostly "Open Shop," we 
 hope soon to have authoritative information as to Omaha conditions 
 which we can give those interested. 
 BUFFALO 
 
 The Builders' Association Exchange of Buffalo, according to their 
 August bulletin, voted 108 to I in favor of the open shop in the building 
 industry. The bulletin says the Exchange "has always been consistently 
 open shop in its policy under the only fair definitions of the term." 
 MINNEAPOLIS 
 
 We recently wrote the Citizen's Alliance of Minneapolis, as to effi- 
 ciency under the open shop. Their reply of December 4th, 1920, reads: 
 
 \As to increased efficiency? I wish to say that practically every manu- 
 facturer and every contractor reports an increase in efficiency within the 
 last sixty days. I think, perhaps this is due to a certain extent, to the fact 
 that there are five or six men for every job. However, I want to say 
 that contractors now operating on the open shop basis claim that their 
 production costs are much lower, due to increased efficiency/^} 
 CHATTANOOGA 
 
 The Associated General Contractors of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 
 June, 1920, refused to grant a 25 per cent advance in wages, and after 
 a strike of nearly three months the men returned to work without any 
 advance. The organization says: 
 
 "The Associated General Contractors of Chattanooga stand for the 
 open shop and refuse flatly to deal with union labor to the exclusion of 
 the principle involved in the open shop." 
 RESULTS OF THE CLOSED SHOP 
 
 A special committee of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce reported 
 that "the existence of the closed union shop throughout the local building 
 industry is the prime cause of the following conditions, which your com- 
 mittee considers detrimental to the public interest as well as to the indus- 
 try itself. 
 
 Among other things the report says: "Underproduction by Cleve- 
 land's building labor is a well defined fact. Your committee believes it 
 may be fairly stated that, compared with 1914 the average building crafts- 
 man in the summer of 1920 produced two-thirds as much work, and re- 
 ceived twice as much pay. Based on this estimate, union building labor 
 costs increased 200 per cent in this interval." They enumerate the causes 
 of the decreased production, nearly all of which was held attributable to 
 restrictive union practices. 
 
132 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Strikes General 
 
 For purposes of reference this chapter contains certain 
 information and facts in regard to strikes. Strikes cause great 
 delay in industry ; harmony and peace are promoted by open shop 
 conditions. In order to properly appreciate the benefits of indus- 
 trial harmony promoted by the open shop we must clearly realize 
 the conditions from which it will free us. 
 
 The following chapter is devoted to two particular forms of 
 industrial disputes which occur almost solely in closed shop plants. 
 
 A "strike" involves the following elements : ( I ) the quitting 
 of work by a group; (2) it is concerted; (3) its purpose is to (a) 
 secure terms they demand; (b) resist terms proposed by the 
 employer, or (c), to enable other workers to win a dispute. 
 
 Facts About American Strikes 
 
 According to the "Statistical Abstract" ofBcial governmental 
 figures for 1881 1905 show that American strikes have been 
 caused as follows. The figures are the percentage of the total 
 number of strikes (certain combinations have been made by the 
 writer). The second column gives these figures for 1915-16. 
 Figures for 1919 are given in the third column. 
 
 Wages 51.78 52.40 44.70 
 
 Hours 5.43 7.48 12.80 
 
 Recognition of union and union rules 18.84 12.50 21.18 
 
 Concerning employment of certain persons 
 
 ( for closed shop) 7.33 6.85 5.10 
 
 Sympathetic 3.66 i.oo 3.27 
 
 Working conditions 2.51 4.75 4.50 
 
 Miscellaneous 11.45 *5-02 8.45 
 
 100.00 100.00 100.00 
 
 In the 1919 figures 554 strikes for increase in wages and 
 decrease in hours have been divided equally between the first 
 two classes. 
 
 These figures included both small and large strikes. From 
 1 88 1 to 1905 an average of 183 men were involved in each strike. 
 Sixty-eight and ninety-nine hundredths per cent, of the strikes 
 from 1 88 1 to 1905 were ordered by labor organizations. From 
 1001 to 1905 about 77 per cent, of the strikes were so ordered. 
 In 1918 of the recorded strikes 83 per cent, were called by unions. 
 
 During 1919 there were 3,253 strikes in the United States. 
 Three million nine hundred and five thousand four hundred and 
 twenty-three workers were involved. An analysis of 1,702 
 
STRIKES GENERAL 133 
 
 strikes revealed an average duration of thirty-four days. Assum- 
 ing that the same average held for the remainder the total num- 
 ber of days lost was 110,602. 
 
 But as each of the 3,905,423 workers average a loss of 
 thirty-four days the total of working days lost was 132,784,382. 
 
 The cost to employes of the 1919 strikes was over $800,- 
 000,000; the loss to employers is estimated at $1,300,000,000. 
 
 The Money Cost of Strikes 
 
 To the American Magazine for February, 1920, Mr. Roger 
 W. Babson, a widely known statistician, contributed an article 
 entitled "What These Strikes Cost You In Money." He analyzed 
 the strikes occurring in the twelve months following the Armistice. 
 He kept his estimates down, so as to be well within the truth. 
 
 These two strikes alone meant 8,602,000 additional days of idleness 
 in August and September, 1919, making a total, for the two months, of 
 11,792,000 regular working days lost 
 
 According to my estimate, this idleness caused a loss to the workers 
 of $41,727,000 in wages; and to the employers a loss of $4,127,000 in 
 profits. At that rate, the year's loss to the strikers would be about a 
 quarter of a billion dollars in wages. The loss to the employers would 
 be about a tenth as much. 
 
 In summarizing Mr. Babson's article, the Business Digest of 
 March 9, 1920, said: 
 
 But this is not the whole story of direct loss from strikes. No strike 
 can take place in modern industry without causing innumerable and 
 widening circles of loss. In August and September, 1919, Babson's had 
 records of strikes involving ninety different trades, among them the 
 following, enough to show that practically every aspect of our daily lives 
 was directly affected. 
 
 Shoes, raincoats, typewriters, cigars, fish, canning, furniture, gar- 
 ments, hats, hosiery, jewelry, wire, coal mining, street car lines, laundries, 
 metals, shipbuilding, lumber, paper, rubber, printing, foods, railroads, 
 express, building trades, and so on. 
 
 Not only did the strikers lose their wages and the employers their 
 profits, but the country did not get the goods that should have been 
 produced. 
 
 Mr. Babson's analysis shows the amount of production lost 
 to be as follows: 
 
 i>75l,74O tons bituminous. 
 1,048,740 tons arthracite. 
 616,300 tons undelivered. 
 88,000 machine-made women's hats. 
 1,768,800 pairs men's shoes. 
 15,886,500 men's shirts. 
 19,183,800 pairs overalls. 
 8,294,000 board feet. 
 
134 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 The Business Digest comments: 
 
 This decrease in production affects you in two ways : You have less 
 and you pay more for what you do have. But for the strikes there would 
 have been about 2,000,000 more pairs of men's shoes an item not to be 
 lightly regarded. 
 
 Moreover, there were threatened strikes and partial cessations of 
 work which, while they did not reach the walkout stage, yet materially 
 reduced output. 
 
 All these direct losses, however, form only the smallest of the circles 
 which widen around a strike. Here is another: If a strike takes place 
 in one industry, it reacts on every industry that contributes in any way 
 to it. 
 
 The Reaction Caused by Strikes 
 Mr. Babson said: 
 
 For instance, a strike in the garment trade reacts on the textile 
 mills the makers of silks, velvets, woolens, cotton fabrics may be forced 
 to quit work. 
 
 For every day of idleness caused in a plant that is on strike, there 
 is another day of idleness caused by the resulting loss of work to other 
 men and women who would normally be busy making materials to be 
 used in that plant. And their loss is not made up, even though th 
 strikers .win. 
 
 And a strike involves not only the direct producers of these materials 
 but every person concerned in selling them and in transporting them 
 The loss is felt at every step. 
 
 The cost of a serious coal strike is almost beyond computation 
 Practically every industry in the country pays part of the price. I: 
 plants are shut down for lack of fuel, every worker in those plants car 
 charge the coal strike with so many days' wages, his wages. It has cos 
 him a new pair of shoes, or a new suit, or a sack of flour, in additior 
 to making his own winter supply of coal scantier and more expensive. 
 
 You may think that a street-car strike would not have their par 
 ticular reaction, but just think it over. Take a subway strike in Nev 
 York City, for instance: Hundreds of thousands of workers are unabl* 
 to reach their shops, or stores, or offices. They may lose only an hou 
 or two, or they may lose a whole day of work. And lost work is los 
 money ! For work means production. And reduced production inevitabl; 
 means increased cost of living. 
 
 For example, here is one of many outside losses caused by the print 
 ing strike in New York City: Some of the shops closed had a larg 
 business in printing catalogs for commercial firms. It is the custom o 
 these firms to depend almost wholly on these catalogs to sell their goods 
 
 The whole manufacturing program of hundreds of these concern 
 was held up because they could not get out their catalogs. It is estimate' 
 that these firms employ over 500,000 people, and indirectly give work t 
 1,000,000 others. Thus, the strike of only a few thousands men in on 
 industry affected 1,500,000 in other lines of production. And retnembe 
 that back of this 1,500,000 are still more men and women whose work an 
 earnings suffered. 
 
STRIKESGENERAL 135 
 
 It is these indirect losses which make the cost of strikes so tre- 
 mendous. They go out in endless ramifications, which finally reach into 
 the pockets of practically every one of us. Everybody has some loss to 
 make up because of them. And when everybody starts to make up 
 losses, the level of all costs rises. 
 
 Here is just one curious instance of the way strikes affect you in 
 ways you do not suspect: Because of the tie-up of shipping, the supply 
 of quinine ran short, and there was great anxiety over this shortage in 
 case the influenza epidemic broke out again. Many other drugs were 
 scarce for the same reason, and higher prices for them were predicted. 
 Over $3,000,000 worth of essential oils were held up, and many of them 
 became very scarce. 
 
 Building materials were delayed, with the result that contractors 
 lost money, workmen were idle, and the construction of new houses, , j 
 stores and offices the only solution of the high-rent problem was held 
 
 back - 
 
 Strikes are Destructive 
 
 (An editorial in the New York Mail of November 30, 1920. 
 
 The figures given out by the State Industrial Commission on the 
 scope and effect of strikes during the fiscal year ending June 30 last, 
 disclose a situation that is fairly incredible. Here are some of these > 
 figures, collected by the Bureau of Mediation and Arbitration: 
 
 There were 240 industrial disputes last year, as compared with 168 
 in the preceding year. 
 
 In these strikes 334,168 persons were directly involved, as against 
 208,952 in the preceding year, and 16,403 persons not directly involved had 
 to quit work because of the tying up of the industrial machinery. 
 
 The aggregate loss of working time in these strikes was 10,608,483 
 days. 
 
 These strikes, involving the reduction of the producing power of the 
 state by 10,608,483 days at a time when increased production was the 
 only answer to the question that was pressing for immediate solution, 
 imposed a heavy burden, not only upon the workers who struck, not only 
 upon the industries that had to suspend operations, but also and emi- 
 nently upon the vast body of consumers who were not at all interested 
 in the issues that were being fought out between employer and employe, 
 but were profoundly affected by the destructive results of the struggle. 
 
 It is the great body of consumers who paid the bulk of the cost of 
 these 240 strikes, which caused the loss of 10,608,483 working days. 
 
 These figures stagger the imagination and impose a wrench upon 
 the power of comprehension., 
 
 They show in terms of facts to what extent our economic and social \ 
 system is still dominated by the principle of violence which society long 
 has discarded in the relations between individuals and groups of indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 We submit to judicial tribunals every form of controversy between r 
 man and man. In . the relations between employer and employed, we / 
 still resort to the weapon of the middle ages and of trie barbarous cen- 
 turies behind them, when force was the only means of settling disputes. 
 
136 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 We have dealt a crushing blow, by our manhood, our arms and our 
 money, at the revolting conception embodied in the rule that Might is 
 Right. After having won that war against disorder in the life of the 
 world we still perpetuate that disorder in our industrial life. 
 
 Is it not time to stop, think and act in a determined endeavor to end 
 forever the industrial anarchy that is affecting disastrously the life of 
 every individual? 
 
 Is it not time for us to relegate the archaic, destructive and sin- 
 gularly unfair and unintelligent weapon of the strike to the museum of 
 savage weapons, condemned by the experience of the race and discarded 
 by the spirit of civilization? 
 
 2,000 Strikers Deprive 50,000 Men of Work 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Simon O'Donnell, business agent 
 of the Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Union, and president of the 
 Chicago Building Trades Council, before the Industrial Relations 
 Commission, July 24, 1914. How a strike of 2,000 men threw 
 50,000 others out of work for three months.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Now, Mr. O'Donnell, lately in Chicago there was a 
 brick strike strike of the brickmakers was there not? 
 
 MR. O'DONNELL: Yes, sir. 
 
 MJR. THOMPSON: In which about 2,700 men were out on a strike? 
 
 MR. O'DONNELL: I believe they claimed about 2,000. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: What effect did that strike have on the other 
 workers in the building trades in Chicago. 
 
 MR. O'DONNELL: It had an immediate effect. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Did it throw them out of work? 
 
 MR. O'DONNELL: Immediately, I might say. Yes; that is, the brick- 
 layers. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Was there a great loss in wages to the members 
 of the building trades unions in Chicago because of that brick strike? 
 
 MR. O'DONNELL: Oh, I believe there were about 50,000 or 6o,ooc 
 men forced on the street for about three or four months. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Well, their wages would amount to several hundrec 
 thousand dollars a day, would they not? 
 
 MR. O'DONNELL: I never stopped to figure them up. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: They would amount to a great deal of money? 
 
 MR. O'DONNELL: Yes. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: What was the settlement of that strike, if yot 
 know, in what increase in wages did that strike result to the brick 
 makers ? 
 
 MR'. O'DONNELL: They got a very little increase. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: About a cent an hour, wasn't it? 
 
 MR. O'DONNELL : I believe it was ; yes. 
 
 Irresponsible Leaders Call Strikes 
 
 (From opinion of Judge F. M. Wright, November 2ist 
 1911, in case of United States vs. Thomas Woods, president oi 
 the local boiler makers' union at East St. Louis. Strikes callec 
 
STRIKES GENERAL 137 
 
 by irresponsible leaders. In many unions the officers can call 
 strikes without vote of the rank and file.) 
 
 "Now, I say to you men, that there is nobody more friendly to you 
 than the men who are operating this Government from top to bottom, 
 and when you suffer yourselves to be misled as you are being misled 
 by these outside agitators, you are simply surrendering to them the 
 rights you ought now to be enjoying. If you would let proper people be 
 your friends instead of these men who want to break up the country, you 
 would be better off, and you can if you want to. I don't see what good 
 this strike is doing you. We can all appreciate a strike that is brought 
 about for the purpose of good a little more wages a little more money. 
 But why break down the laws ? You don't appreciate it, but those that 
 see to it understand that is the object of it. Read those publications 
 the publications that are foisted upon you, and see what they say about it. 
 
 "Now, I have said this much in a general way. I probably have said 
 this much before. I would like to see all these men on strike get down 
 to fair, unbiased, unprejudiced consideration of this thing. Go back 
 to work. There is no reason why you are out. You can't tell a private 
 corporation or any private concern to surrender up their business to 
 these outside people away off from here. You don't know them. Why, 
 I am informed, not by the evidence in this that the largest shops on this 
 railroad, where there are the most men (I am creditably informed this 
 is true), when this strike question came up, voted unanimously against 
 it. Now, think of that for a moment. At the Burnside yards I am 
 informed that there was a unanimous vote against it, unless I am mis- 
 taken about it, but certainly a very large majority were against it. 
 But what happened? Somebody away off, I don't know who, some 
 man that your suffrage has elevated and that you have submitted this 
 to in some way or other that you felt yourselves under obligations to 
 obey these outsiders come in here, control your business, keep you out 
 of your jobs, keep you out of your money. I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't 
 submit to it. It is the most cruel tyranny on earth ; men who voluntarily 
 submit to these irresponsible men and carry out their orders to its fullest 
 extent. They have some rules, I don't know what, but some rules and 
 regulations that require you to obey what they say. You are under 
 no legal obligation to obey any such orders. I wouldn't do it. Tech- 
 nically, this defendant is guilty. 
 
 "Now, I will tell you what I am going to do in this case. It is 
 the last case as far as I know, of this kind upon this docket, and I 
 hope it will be the last, for it is no pleasure to me to be compelled 
 to pass upon these questions and judge these men guilty of contempt 
 of court and punish them. I am going to do this : I am going to take 
 this case under advisement indefinitely, convene it to the adjourned 
 session of the September term at Danville, and allow this man to go as 
 it were, upon parole. I will put him upon a par with all of these strikers 
 that are out striking. If they behave I will never punish this man; but 
 if they don't and I am compelled to pass upon these cases again, I don't 
 mow wnat'l will do. -I trust this is the last one that will ever come up/' 
 
138 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Strikes Sympathetic and Jurisdictional 
 
 Strikes are far more apt to occur, and do occur more oftei 
 in closed shop establishments than in open shop plants. A: 
 pointed out in Chapter VIII, many of the "walking delegates' 
 find it advantageous either to foment, or at least not to discourage 
 strife. 
 
 Then there is the sympathetic strike. The employer doe* 
 not consider it just, for instance, that his employes, who an 
 well satisfied with their conditions, should have to strike because 
 employes in some other establishment have differences with theii 
 employer. Why, to imagine a case, should the Pennsylvania Rail- 
 road be forced to cease operations because the workers on the 
 Denver and Rio Grande Railway believe they are unjustly treated' 
 Or take a case which comes more immediately home, perhaps 
 The apartment house janitors in Chicago went on strike a feu 
 years ago. Because of "sympathy" the milk wagon drivers anc 
 grocery delivery drivers refused to deliver goods themselves 01 
 to allow others to deliver goods at these apartment houses. Wher 
 none but union men may be employed in a plant the fair employe! 
 may, through absolutely no fault of his own, have his establish- 
 ment shut down for weeks or for months. 
 
 Dr. Frank T. Stockton, in his book "The Closed Shop ir 
 American Trade Unions," declares on page 171 : 
 
 "It is equally undeniable that most unions which have opportunity 
 to enforce the extended or the joint closed shop have not hesitated a 1 
 times to strike even when all their demands in the particular shop have 
 been satisfied. Moreover, the closed shop has involved employers in waste 
 ful jurisdictional disputes with which they have no real concern. Wen 
 there no closed shops such disputes would be robbed of all their bitter 
 ness." 
 
 (From testimony, of Mr. Edward Dunn, financial secretary 
 of Bricklayers' Union No. 34, before the Industrial Relations 
 Commis'sion, May 28, 1914. Mr. Dunn shows the harm done tc 
 the workers by sympathetic strikes. The bricklayers joined the 
 American Federation in 1916.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Is your organization, the International Union, affili- 
 ated with the American Federation of Labor? 
 
 MR. DUNN : No, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Do you know why it is not affiliated with the 
 American Federation of Labor? 
 
STRIKES SYMPATHETIC AND JURISDICTIONAL 139 
 
 MR. DUNN : The bricklayers of the country have taken a referendum 
 vote, voted not to affiliate in any way. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Do you know the principal reason or argument upon 
 which they refused to affiliate? 
 
 MR. DUNN: No, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Have you any idea why they do not affiliate? 
 
 MR. DUNN: I suppose they consider there would be too much .loss 
 of time to protect themselves. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : In other words, they feel 
 
 MR. DUNN : They would be called upon by every organization to 
 go on sympathetic strikes, and they are able to take care of themselves; 
 that is my personal opinion. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Mr. Dunn, did I understand you to say that 
 your union was not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor? 
 
 MR. DUNN: Yes, sir. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : And your personal opinion of the reason was 
 what? 
 
 MR. DUNN: Why, that we would be on the street most of the time. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : On account of sympathetic strikes, etc. ? 
 
 MR. DUNN: Yes, sir. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Charles B. Torpy, business agent 
 of the Holders' Union, Philadelphia, before the Industrial Rela- 
 tions Commission, June 26, 1914. Page 2921 of the record. Mr. 
 Torpy's testimony shows that some employers feel forced to 
 discriminate against union men because of the danger of sympa- 
 thetic strikes.) 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: Then those four large concerns employ 
 approximately, in normal times, 1,000 molders? 
 
 MR. TORPY: Yes. Well, 800 anyway. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL : And, as a rule they do not employ union 
 men? 
 
 MR. TORPY: No, sir. They don't employ union men if they can 
 get others to take their places. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: What is the reason for that? 
 
 MR. TORPY: Well, the reason, I guess, in the Baldwin plant is they 
 had a strike there along in 1910, and after that strike they decided to 
 not employ any more union men. It was a sort of a sympathetic strike, 
 the molder's strike was, and ever since then they have absolutely refused 
 to employ union men. 
 
 A Denial and Its Answer 
 
 Writing in System of April, 1920, the President of the 
 American Federation of Labor said: 
 
 "A sympathetic strike is absolutely against the principles of the Amer- 
 ican Federation of Labor." 
 
 Yet what do the acts of the American Federation reveal? 
 In 1890 (page 42 of the official proceedings) it was declared 
 
140 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 that help should be given sister unions in case of sympathetic 
 strikes. 
 
 In 1895 (page 82) it was declared that trade unions. should 
 not tie themselves up with contracts so that they cannot help 
 each other when able in other words, no contract should be 
 made preventing men from discontinuing work because of "sym- 
 pathy." 
 
 In 1902 (page 144) a similar resolution was passed. 
 
 In 1916 (page 397) unions were advised to enter into no 
 agreements that call for the surrender of any right to strike in 
 support of other workers. 
 
 Why should such resolutions be passed if sympathetic 
 strikes are "against the principles of the American Federation of 
 Labor?" Or is the attempt to make the public believe the A. F. 
 of L. opposes sympathetic strikes a recognition of the fact that 
 the public does not approve such strikes ? Is the denial based on 
 the true facts? 
 
 Jurisdictional Disputes 
 
 Of similar nature is the "Jurisdictional" strike. As a builder, 
 say, you employ only union men, under a closed shop agreement. 
 Then the plumbers' union says to the steamfitters' union that the 
 latter cannot do a certain kind of work. Or the carpenters, lathers 
 and plasterers may have a dispute as to which union is entitled, 
 according to their own rules (they are the "bosses"), to perform 
 a certain job. The employer's judgment is not consulted, but 
 work is stopped, while the men dispute who shall do the task. 
 Building operations have been stopped for weeks or months in 
 New York, Chicago, and San Francisco because of such disputes. 
 These disputes, bear in mind, are not whether union men shall 
 do the work; the dispute is as to what union men shall do it. 
 Many are settled locally ; others affect workers all over the nation. 
 In 1908, nineteen such disputes, involving at least thirty-eight 
 different unions, came before the annual convention of the' Ameri- 
 can Federation of Labor for settlement. In 1914, twenty-two 
 Jurisdictional disputes came before the annual convention. The 
 individual employer has signed a closed shop agreement and has 
 accepted all the union rules ; yet his work may be seriously delayed 
 because of Jurisdictional disputes. Employers operating under 
 the Open Shop principle are bothered neither by the sympathetic 
 nor Jurisdictional strike. 
 
 Splinters and Chips (Evansville, Ind.) for December, 1920, 
 
STRIKES SYMPATHETIC AND JURISDICTIONAL 141 
 
 contains this comment on the jurisdictional strike, an evil often 
 inflicted on closed shop employers. 
 
 "An exchange quotes a jurisdictional fight in Cleveland which shows 
 one of the most pernicious dangers confronting contractors and investors 
 when dealing under 'closed shop.' 
 
 "The international office of the carpenters has called a strike on a large 
 office building to sandbag the contractors into allowing that craft the 
 privilege of hanging metal doors. 
 
 "This is a disputed privilege and to have the matter settled for all 
 time, the international president has ordered the strike, though it will 
 be a couple of months before the building is ready for the doors. Moral : 
 Have all your work done under open shop conditions, thus insuring work 
 done as you contract." 
 
 Do you know that during a critical period of our war 
 activity the Army Supply Base in Brooklyn was the most needed 
 piece of work in this country ? The work had reached the point 
 where sixty-two automatic electric elevators were to be installed. 
 The unions of electrical workers and elevator constructors then 
 entered upon a dispute between themselves as to which union 
 was entitled to do the work. The construction, was tied up for 
 four months at a vital period, when it was necessary to aid the 
 successful prosecution of the war. Such disputes between unions, 
 where no question of the employer's fairness or reasonableness is 
 concerned, tie up yearly vast amounts of work. 
 
 (From the November 26, 1920 bulletin of the Sioux City, 
 Iowa, Employers' Association.) 
 
 Arthur M. Evans, in the Chicago Tribune, cites some of the instances, 
 too long for reproduction, which have caused the shelving of approxi- 
 mately $150,000,000.00 worth of work in Chicago alone. 
 
 Among them is the case of electricians in a large apartment striking 
 "because the fixtures were not installed until the tenants could make 
 their individual selections." Carpenters on the Drake Hotel demanded 
 "waiting time" while they were out on a jurisdictional strike; result was 
 120 carpenters out for six or seven weeks. Other jurisdictional strikes 
 between bricklayers and painters, bricklayers and electricians, carpenters 
 and plasterers, etc. Statisticians have contended that 66 per cent of indus- 
 trial interruptions are caused directly by jurisdictional disputes among the 
 various union crafts. Does this mean anything to you? 
 
 Nature and Causes 
 
 (From Dr. Frank T. Stockton's book, "The Closed Shop in 
 American Trade Unions," published by Johns Hopkins Univer- 
 sity in 1911. Pages 65 and 66.) 
 
 When 'the trade or territorial jurisdiction claimed by two unions 
 is identical or overlaps, the members of the two unions ordinarily refuse 
 
142 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 to work with each other. In 1898 for instance, the "Baltimore organiza- 
 tion" of painters in its struggle with the "Lafayette organization" declared 
 "all painters not affiliated with the Baltimore headquarters to be non- 
 union men." Seceding local unions and the national union have always 
 been especially hostile to one another. When the trade unions from 1881 
 on began to demand independence from the Knights of Labor, the latter 
 refused to allow members of the unions to be employed in the shops 
 controlled by them. It was recognized very early that the closed 
 shop might be a powerful weapon in many jurisdictional disputes. 
 Among those in which it has been used in recent years are the disputes 
 between the Glass Bottle Blowers and the Flint Glass Workers, between 
 .the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and the Wood Workers, between 
 the Plumbers and Steam Fitters, between the Granite Cutters, the Stone 
 Cutters, and the Marble Workers, and between the Bricklayers and 
 Masons and Plasterers. 
 
 When the jurisdictions claimed by two unions are identical, mem- 
 bers of the one organization refuse to work with those of the other 
 under all circumstances. But if their jurisdictions merely overlap, 
 as in the dispute between the Glass Bottle Blowers and the Flint Glass 
 Workers, the members of one of the unions do not ordinarily refuse to 
 work with members of the other except on the particular class of em- 
 ployment in dispute. Similarly, the Woodworkers would not complain 
 if a member of the Carpenters was hired to make repairs on a shop 
 in which the Woodworkers were employed, but they would strike if a 
 member of the Carpenters was hired to do woodworking. 
 
 In commenting upon, the constantly recurring jurisdictional disputes 
 between trade unions, the editor of the Plumbers, Gas Fitters and Steam 
 Fitters' Journal in 1896 lamented that less courtesy had ordinarily been 
 shown to the holder of an "opposition card" and that life had been 
 made "more bitter" for him than in the case of "one who has always 
 remained outside the pale of united labor and who has always been 
 inimical to its interests." The unions have felt that when a non-unionist 
 secures employment in a shop controlled by them, it will not ordinarily 
 be difficult to induce him to join their ranks. But the union in control 
 is extremely reluctant to allow a member of a rival or hostile union to be 
 employed in a shop. There is always the danger that he may win over 
 the shop to his own union. 
 
 Jurisdictional Disputes Damage Industry 
 
 (Extracts from, "Jurisdiction in American Building Trades 
 Unions," by Dr. Nathaniel R. Whitney, published by Johns Hop- 
 kins University, 1914. Italics ours. Dr. Whitney clearly shows 
 the great harm wrought to workers by jurisdictional disputes. 
 Workers in open shop plants are not bothered to any great extent 
 by them'.) 
 
 To one who studies the history of trade-union development or observes 
 the present activities of the unions, one of the most obtrusive facts is the 
 frequent and almost interminable disputes between different organizations 
 or between different branches of the same organization over the question 
 
STRIKES SYMPATHETIC AND JURISDICTIONAL 143 
 
 of jurisdiction in one form or another. An examination of the records 
 for the past twenty years of the American Federation of Labor, into 
 which as a sort of melting pot the contending parties pour their quarrels 
 with the hope, that by the addition of the elements of conference and 
 agreement, peace will result, shows the great frequency and bitterness of 
 these disputes as well as the necessity for overcoming them if labor is to 
 attain really effective combination. 
 
 The convention proceedings of the American Federation of Labor each 
 year contain extensive references by the president or the executive council 
 to the prevalence of jurisdictional disputes. In his report to the conven- 
 tion in 1903, for instance, President Gompers called attention to the 
 grave dangers which confronted the organization by reason of the many 
 jurisdictional disputes. Many efforts, he said, had been made to settle 
 them by arbitration and agreement, but the unions frequently refused to 
 accept the awards of an arbitrator, and insisted on their own narrow inter- 
 pretation of jurisdiction. He pointed out that during the year there were 
 requests from unions for the revocation of no less than thirty charters of 
 international unions. Some unions which had no jurisdiction troubles 
 had deliberately put themselves in the way of them by extending their 
 claims to jurisdiction for no better reason than that other organizations 
 had extended theirs. 
 
 The Labor World Is Disrupted 
 
 In spite of the exhortation of President Gompers and the warnings 
 of the executive council, disputes continued to arise with unabated fre- 
 quency. In 1908, during the eleven days in which the convention of the 
 Federation was in session, there were nineteen cases of jurisdictional 
 disputes under consideration. To each of these disputes there were at 
 least two parties. This makes the number of unions involved at least 
 thirty-eight, and when one further thinks of the number of members 
 in these thirty-eight unions some idea will be afforded of the extent 
 to which the labor ivorld is disrupted and agitated by such disputes. In 
 addition it should be kept in mind that the jurisdiction disputes which 
 have attained the dignity of national importance that is, of being dis- 
 cussed by the national officials of the two contending unions are con- 
 sidered by the Federation. Besides these there are almost countless con- 
 troversies over jurisdiction. Each national union has from a dozen to 
 several hundred local unions under its authority; each one of these thou- 
 sands of subordinate unions is likely at some time to have its trade 
 infringed upon by a branch of another national union, and these disputes 
 may be and frequently are settled locally and so not become an issue 
 between the national unions. Morover, there are many jurisdictional dis- 
 putes between branches of the same national union which are settled with- 
 out recourse to the American Federation of Labor. The national unions 
 also ordinarily dispose of local dual unions without recourse to the Fed- 
 eration. 
 
 The American Federation of Labor was relieved of some of the bur- 
 den involved in the consideration of jurisdictional disputes by the forma- 
 tion in 1908 of the Building Trades Department, to which all matters 
 
144 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 affecting particularly the building trades are referred. Since, as has been 
 noted, the building trades offer the most fertile field for jurisdiction diffi- 
 culties, the establishment of the Department has resulted in the transfer 
 of the greater part of these disputes to it, though the Federation as a kind 
 of appellate court still passes upon many contests in which building trades 
 unions are participants. The records of the Building Trades Department 
 show no diminution in the number of jurisdictional disputes. The dele- 
 gates sent by the Plumbers to the convention of the Department in 1909 
 reported that the time of the convention was taken up mainly by juris- 
 dictional controversies, and they added, "The situation is getting to be a 
 critical one throughout the entire country and with all the building trades," 
 Some twenty jurisdictional disputes were considered by the convention 
 of 1910, and in 1912 eighteen disputes were referred to committees. In 
 addition, a number of disagreements which had developed from juris- 
 dictional difficulties were discussed. 
 
 For instance, the expense must have been very heavy not only to the 
 Steam Fitters, but to other unions as well when the Steam Fitters were 
 on strike during the first six or seven months of 1910 to gain control of 
 the pipe-fitting industry in New York. A consciousness of the heavy cost 
 of jurisdictional difficulties is shown in the following statement of Presi- 
 dent Short, made at the session of the Building Trades Department in 
 1911: "The jurisdictional disputes which have become the bane of our 
 lives must end, and the only way this enormous loss of money to our 
 membership can be ended is by loyalty to this Department" The presi- 
 dent of the Hod Carriers' and Building Laborers' Union said in 1908 that 
 their local union in Chicago had recently been "drawn into one of those 
 cursed jurisdictional fights between the Carpenters and the Electricians, 
 which put five hundred of our men upon the street for five weeks. * * * 
 Instead of wasting our strength, time and money in fighting one another, 
 we should devote it to organizing the unorganized." 
 
 The Elevator Constructors had a serious and costly dispute with the 
 Machinists in Chicago over the installation of pumps connected with 
 hydraulic elevators. A strike which resulted which lasted for more than 
 two years, during which most of the elevator men in the city were out 
 of work, while members of the Machinists and other unions supplied 
 their places with the Otis Elevator Company. Finally, on May I, 1911, 
 the Elevator Constructors as the result of an agreement went back to work 
 and the Machinists were displaced. From that time on, the Elevator 
 Constructors were treated as "scabs" by the Machinists ; they were beaten 
 and even killed, so that the union was forced to hire detectives to protect 
 its members and to convict the "sluggers." This difficulty alone cost the 
 union thousands of dollars. The losses in wages due to disputes are 
 not often estimated by trade-union officials, but we occasionally come 
 across such estimates. For instance, in 1910 the secretary of the Brick- 
 layers said: "Our disputes with the Operative Plasterers' Union during 
 the past year have taken thousands of dollars out of our International 
 treasury for the purpose of protecting our interests. The loss in wages 
 to our own members has amounted to at least $300,000. The losses to 
 our employers have been up in the thousands also. * * * In several 
 
STRIKES SYMPATHETIC AND JURISDICTIONS 145 
 
 instances the writ of injunction has been brought into play for the pur- 
 pose of restraining unions involved in trade disputes and unless the 
 unions * * * provide some means of eliminating jurisdictional warfare, 
 it is only a question of time when the legislatures of our country will be 
 called upon to pass laws that will penalize labor unionists who indulge 
 in such struggles." 
 
 In the examples which have been cited the attempt was made to give 
 some indication of the money cost in each case to only one of the parties 
 engaged in the quarrel. It is obvious that the total cost must be much 
 greater than this, since there is always at least one other union directly 
 connected with the dispute, which must likewise expend a large sum of 
 money to preserve what it regards as its rights. In addition many unions, 
 whose wage loss must be taken into account, may be forced out on 
 strike in sympathy with one or the other of the principals. 
 
 If we turn our attention as far west as Denver, we find during 1909 
 another impressive illustration of the havoc wrought by jurisdictional 
 controversies. Here again the trouble started between the two unions of 
 carpenters. A large part of the Denver local branch of the Amalgamated 
 Society of Carpenters joined the local union of the Brotherhood and the 
 Amalgamated Society was denied representation in the Denver Building 
 Trades Council. 
 
 A series of strikes against the Brotherhood men was inaugurated 
 which involved all affiliated organizations and caused great loss and 
 inconvenience to owners and builders. 
 
 Result in Violence Between Unions 
 
 Chicago also furnished an illustration of the effect of jurisdictional 
 disputes in leading to violence between unions. The International Associa- 
 tion of Steam Fitters having been suspended from the Building Trades 
 Department, the Chicago Building Trades Council in 1911 decided to aid 
 the Plumbers in establishing a local branch of steam fitters. Trouble 
 began immediately. Two of the trades unaflftliated with the local council 
 took the side of the Steam Fitters, and several included in the Council 
 also aided them in every way possible. If a contractor employed the 
 Steam Fitters to do the steam fitting, the trades loyal to the Council 
 would refuse to work for him: if on the other hand he employed the 
 Plumbers, the organizations friendly to the Steam Fitters would strike. 
 It was thus made impossible to have work done, no matter what the 
 contractor or owner was willing to do, and work on a large number of 
 buildings was at a standstill for many months. The feeling between the 
 hostile unions was intensely bitter. It was openly charged that thugs were 
 hired by union men to assault other union men, and three of the most 
 prominent local officials of the Plumbers were arrested on the charge 
 of conspiracy to kill. A local agreement was finally reached which put 
 an end to this warfare. 
 
 We must now note still another item in the cost of this internecine 
 strife, that is, the alienation of public sympathy from the trade unions. 
 One does not ordinarily realize how important an element in the success 
 of organized labor is the sympathy and co-operation of the public but 
 
146 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 if he stops to consider merely those cases which have come under his ow 
 observation he will recall that those strikes or other labor movement 
 which have received "the moral support of the community have almos 
 uniformly been successful, while those which have lacked this suppoi 
 were with few exceptions failures. The efforts made by both employer 
 and unionists to enlist public sympathy in their cause furnish addition; 
 evidence that anything that tends to alienate public sympathy is an extreme 
 ly expensive indulgence. There can be no doubt that jurisdictional die 
 putes provide one of the prime reasons for much of the widespread publi 
 criticism of trade unionism. 
 
 The gravity of the losses occasioned to contractors by jurisdiction; 
 disputes is recognised by many unionists. Secretary Spencer of the Buik 
 ing Trades Department said: "Unfortunately there has never been a 
 attempt exerted heretofore to adjust amicably jurisdiction claims, and th 
 policy of tying up the building in order to secure a temporary gain ov< 
 one union whose members have seen fit to claim certain work that ma 
 or may not be controlled by the other union, has been recklessly followe< 
 In this the contractors and owners involved have complained bitterly an 
 properly that such disputes should be settled among ourselves withoi 
 drawing them into them to be abused by one or cursed by the other di: 
 putant. * * * It is not properly within the province of organized labor 1 
 assume a position that will militate against the progress of the buildir 
 business as an industry." In announcing in November, 1906, that an agre< 
 ment had been signed between the Operative Plasterers and the Bricl 
 layers, thus bringing to an end a conflict which had begun in 1868, tf 
 editor of the Bricklayers' and Mason's Journal said: "The agreemei 
 removes from the trade union movement a jurisdictional dispute that fa 
 involved the building industry for over thirty years, and which has n( 
 only been a source of great loss to the journeymen, financially, but h; 
 caused most vexatious delays in building operations, and consequent final 
 cial loss to employers and to the building public, the latter being innocei 
 parties to the trouble and perfectly helpless in providing a remedy f( 
 its correction. i , 
 
 A great deal of trouble and loss was caused to the builders of Chicag 
 by the Machinery Movers who claimed the exclusive right to deliver a 
 machinery inside of buildings and in many cases also to set it up. Th 
 organization caused considerable delay in the construction of the Harr 
 Trust Building, and in a period of less than a year was responsible f( 
 no less than fifty separate strikes during which the work of employe 
 was delayed. 
 
 Paying Two Men for One Job 
 
 Delay and annoyance are not the only evils suffered by employe 
 from interunion disputes. They are sometimes compelled to tear o 
 work that has been placed by one union and to allow another union clair 
 ing the work to replace it. An effort of this sort was made in July, 190 
 when all the brick work on the Wanamaker store building in Philadelph 
 was stopped because certain concrete work was under the direction < 
 the Roebling Construction Company and consisted merely in filling 
 concrete as a backing for terra-cotta cornices. The local bricklayers i 
 
STRIKES SYMPATHETIC AND JURISDICTION AL 147 
 
 sisted that the work which had already been done should be torn out 
 and that the bricklayers be paid for all time they lost while being on 
 strike to enforce their claim. The work of the contractors was delayed 
 for several weeks and a number of conferences were held, one of which 
 was attended by the architects, the various contractors and the local and 
 national representatives of the unions. The local bricklayers were finally 
 ordered by the national officers to return to work, and were not allowed to 
 collect from the Construction Company for their lost time. Occasionally 
 in order to get the work done the employers must pay one group of men 
 for actually performing the work and, at same time pay another group 
 belonging to a different union as if they had done it, thus paying twice 
 for the same piece of work. 
 
 We must also take some account of the jurisdictional dispute from 
 the point of view of society as a whole. 
 
 Regarded from this point of view, jurisdictional disputes may be 
 indicted on four counts: (i) They waste both labor and capital; (2) 
 They make it impracticable in many cases to use improved appliances and 
 cheaper materials; (3) They are responsible for hesitancy in undertaking 
 and increased expense in prosecuting building, to the detriment of the 
 building industry; (4) Finally where the disputes are long continued they 
 are responsible for that whole train of evil results which follows upon 
 idleness and poverty. 
 
 One of the most tangible results of jurisdictional disputes is that 
 builders are frequently compelled to forego the use of improved appliances, 
 cheaper materials and more efficient methods because they cannot get the 
 unions to agree as to which of them is to use the new device or control 
 the new material. Thus, in Chicago automatic stokers were being built 
 and used until the disputes over this work between the Machinists, the 
 Millwrights and the Structural Iron Workers became so frequent and 
 so bitter that the construction was either delayed or abandoned. 
 
 On account of these difficulties and uncertainties, the whole building 
 industry moves more sluggishly and society is compelled to pay for its 
 building construction a price increased sufficiently to maintain, as it were, 
 an insurance fund against the possible delays and expenses due to juris- 
 dictional controversies. Thus the industry is retarded mainly by those 
 who ought to be its chief friends. That this state of affairs is realized 
 and deprecated by the unions themselves is shown by the following 
 statement in the report of the executive council of the Building Trades 
 Department in 1912: "If we of the building trades were alone involved 
 in the settlement of these disputes, we could afford to continue our dis- 
 cussion of them even though it may sometimes result in conflict, but the 
 cause for most concern lies in the fact that we occupy perhaps the minor 
 position in this embarrassing situation. At all events we have no moral 
 or ethical right to embroil the contractor and owner of the building under 
 construction. * * * In every avenue of trade and commerce the aim 
 is to encourage a greater field of activity, to increase the volume of 
 business year after year. By the same token it should be our purpose 
 to stimulate greater activity in building erection. Our talents and capabil- 
 ities should be devoted in large measure to attain this end, for such a 
 
148 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 termination of our united endeavors would simply mean more continuous 
 employment for the members of our several organizations. That is to 
 say, if v we can demonstrate our ability to settle trade grievances among 
 ourselves, without involving the architect, owner and contractor, we will 
 immediately inspire confidence in the mind of the investing public,' with 
 a resultant stimulas in building operations." 
 
 Jurisdictional Disputes Are Expensive 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. John R. Alpine, president of the 
 Plumbers' Union, before the Industrial Relations Commission, 
 May 27, 1914. Italics ours. Mr. Alpine admits that great damage 
 is caused to employers and public by Jurisdictional disputes.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: What was the duration of the Jurisdictional dis- 
 pute between the steamfitters and plumbers, and what extent of country 
 did it cover? 
 
 MR. ALPINE: Well, prior to the year 1899 there existed an inter- 
 national labor organization which comprised in its ranks plumbers, steam 
 fitters, and gas fitters, which was known as the International Association; 
 that was the title. In 1889 that association became known as the United 
 Association, which is the association of to-day. And at a convention held 
 in Washington, D. C., in October of 1889 the steam fitters became disasso- 
 ciated with the general organization and instituted an organization of their 
 own; so that you could say that, while prior to 1889 there had always 
 existed differences of opinion with regard to working lines or demarca- 
 tion lines, that after 1889 those differences became more pronounced 
 because of the fact the two organizations were then in existence. From 
 that time until, well, until a year ago, those Jurisdictional strifes existed 
 throughout the country. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : For a great many years ? 
 
 MR. ALPINE: Since 1889, and, as I say, prior to that, but more pro- 
 nounced since that time. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: And in our opinion have the Jurisdictional contests 
 which have been waged in the years gone been very costly to the building 
 industry? 
 
 MR. ALPINE: There is no question about it. They have. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Have you any opinion as to the public cost in 
 round numbers? 
 
 MR. ALPINE : I haven't any opinion that would be I am not qualified 
 to answer that so that it might be regarded as a matter of record. In our 
 controversy the loss in dollars and cents, as represented by the cessation 
 of labor, is of such a magnitude that nobody has yet undertaken the task 
 of computation. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Do you think it would run into millions of dollars ? 
 
 MR. ALPINE : No doubt of it. 
 
 MR, THOMPSON: In other words, it has been a very expensive prop- 
 osition for the building trades? 
 
 MR. ALPINE: Most assuredly. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Workers and builders as well? 
 
 MR. ALPINE: Most assuredly. \ 
 
INDUSTRIAL WARFARE 149 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Industrial Warfare 
 
 In this chapter we will study something of the conduct of 
 strikes and lockouts by both parties. Charges made as to the 
 general activities of employers in non-strike periods will also be 
 referred to. 
 
 It would not, of course, be correct to say that all closed shop 
 unions resort to violence or other unfair and illegal practices. 
 
 But many of them, in their efforts to enforce the closed 
 shop and other demands, do resort to such tactics. They are 
 sufficiently numerous and of sufficient importance to the public 
 welfare to merit study as to their causes and remedies. They 
 occur to a far larger extent under the closed shop, and in efforts 
 to establish the closed shop, than under open shop operation. 
 
 Closed Shop Without Coercion? 
 
 There are those who tell us that unions if they "have a fair 
 chance to organize, will win their fight without coercion." Per- 
 haps those persons have had the "wool pulled over their eyes" 
 by their closed shop friends. In Miss Marot's book we read on 
 page 121 (italics ours) : 
 
 On grounds, then, of ethical implication, and in the interests of 
 justice and industrial peace, the "free American workingmen" and the 
 non-union employer became fit subjects for coercion. 
 
 Miss Marot is a very prominent champion of the closed shop, 
 and was for eight years secretary of the Woman's Trade Union 
 League of New York. 
 
 How far they will go in the kind of force they are willing 
 to employ against the worker is shown in the official report of 
 Mr. Luke Grant to the United States Commission on Industrial 
 Relations* made in 1915. Mr. Grant is a union carpenter, and 
 both before and after his report was -officially connected with 
 labor unions. He said, pages 115-117: 
 
 In recent years there has been a marked change in the nature of the 
 violence committed in the building trades and in the methods used. The 
 ordinary workman who in former days was apt to use his fists on the 
 head of a scab for the sake of the cause, seldom does so now. His place 
 has been taken by the professional thug and gunman. Violence has be- 
 come commercialized and made more brutal. Assaults on non-union 
 workmen are seldom made openly as in former days when the strikers 
 did the assaulting. The professional slugger lies in wait for his victim, 
 assaults him with a bludgeon or probably shoots him to death * * * . 
 If the destruction of property seems more expedient than the slugging of 
 
150 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 non-union men, the professional will attend to that * * * . That 
 such a system of organized thuggery obtains in many of the building 
 trades unions is beyond dispute. 
 
 Judicial Decision Recites the Facts of Violence 
 
 (From decision of United States Circuit Court of Appeals 
 for the Seventh Circuit, October term and session, 1913, in the 
 case of Ryan vs. United States. This was the case resulting in 
 the conviction of leaders of the Structural Iron Workers for 
 dynamiting of property. The portion of the decision here 
 quoted is an epitome of the 25,000 pages of testimony in the 
 case.) 
 
 The facts thus recited, as proven by the Government on the trial, 
 may be mentioned in part as follows : 
 
 The nature of the contest between the International Association of 
 Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, of which "all of the defendants 
 except two that were convicted were members," and the American 
 Bridge Co., and of the ensuing general strike declared and supported by 
 the association "throughout the United States," extending from 1905 
 continuously down to "the time of the trial" is described. In the early 
 months it was attended by "numerous acts of violence" in various places, 
 and commencing in 1906 dynamite was brought into use "to blow up 
 and destroy buildings and bridges that were being erected by 'open-shop' 
 concerns," and such explosions started in the eastern part of the country 
 and "extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific" in many places. This 
 course continued "until the arrest of the McNamaras and McManigal in 
 April, 1911." Almost 100 explosions thus occurred, "damaging and 
 destroying buildings and bridges in process of erection where the work 
 was being done by 'open-shop' concerns." And "no explosions took place 
 in connection with work of a similar character that was being done by 
 'closed-shop' concerns." From February 17, 1908, until April 22, 1911, 
 seventy of such explosions occurred, forty-three of which were in con- 
 nection with work either of the National Erectors' Association or Ameri- 
 can Bridge Co. and affiliated concerns, and twenty-seven of the explosions 
 occurred in connection with the work of independent concerns in no way 
 connected with either thereof. Dynamite was first used together with 
 fuse and fulminating caps, the fuse being generally about fifty feet in 
 length, "and when lighted the explosion would occur in about half an 
 hour." Nitroglycerine was next brought into use provided with a clock 
 and battery and attachments to be used together with dynamite and 
 nitroglycerine, constituting what was termed an infernal machine, to be 
 used in connection with the dynamite and nitroglycerine in the destruction 
 of buildings and bridges of "open-shop concerns" ; and "from this time 
 forward the clock and battery was used in connection with charges of 
 dynamite and nitroglycerine in the destruction of life and property." 
 
 These infernal machines "were so made and arranged that they could 
 be and were set to cause the explosion to take place several hours after 
 it was set, so that the person setting the explosion could be hundreds 
 of miles away when the explosion took place." The headquarters of the 
 
INDUSTRIAL WARFARE 151 
 
 international association was at the outset in Cleveland, Ohio, but was 
 removed to Indianapolis, Ind., early in 1906, and there remained. The 
 various places in which the several defendants were located mentioned 
 in various states. The dynamite and nitroglycerine which were used for 
 the explosions mentioned "were transported in passenger cars on pas- 
 senger trains of common carriers engaged in the transportation of passen- 
 gers for hire into and over and across" various states named. Explosions 
 took place "in alt of the states named, and a number of times in some 
 of them and were planned to be made in other states named." In con- 
 nection with this work of destruction, "dynamite and nitroglycerine were 
 purchased and stolen and various storage plans arranged to conveniently 
 store such explosives that were to be used in the destruction of property 
 in the various states" referred to ; and "such explosives were carried and 
 taken on passenger trains from such storage places in the various states 
 to various places in the other states where structural iron work was in 
 process of erection," and the various locations are named. 
 
 Large quantities of dynamite and nitroglycerine were at various 
 times stored in vaults of the association in Indianapolis and also in the 
 basement of the building. These storage place "were so arranged that 
 dynamite and nitroglycerine could be readily obtained and transported 
 from such place of storage" to other places for this use in destruction of 
 property, also clocks and batteries, as described, and fuse and fulminating 
 caps, as well, in large quantities, "all to be used in connection with the 
 dynamite and nitroglycerine for the destruction of property" ; and some 
 thereof were stored in the vaults of the association at Indianapolis, "so 
 that the same would be accessible for immediate use in connection with 
 any explosion desired at any other place in the United States." For the 
 purpose of carrying such explosives "suit cases and carrying bags were 
 obtained and purchased, in which such dynamite and nitroglycerine, 
 clocks, batteries, fuses, caps, and attachments could be conveniently placed 
 and carried by persons going from a place of storage to a place in 
 another state on passenger trains of common carriers, etc." All the ex- 
 plosions mentioned "were accomplished with the materials including nit- 
 roglycerine and dynamite so stored, and were transported "from said 
 storage place to the various places throughout the United States where 
 such explosions occurred in suit cases and carrying bags by persons 
 traveling upon the passenger trains of common carriers," etc. 
 
 "Four explosions occurred in one night at the same hour in Indiana- 
 polis," and "explosions were planned to take place on the same night two 
 hours apart at Omaha, Neb., and Columbus, Ind., and the explosions so 
 planned did occur on the same night at about the same time instead of 
 two hours apart, owing to the fact that one clock was defective. The 
 explosions referred to at Omaho and Columbus were all "open-shop 
 concerns," and the infernal machines used therein were taken from the 
 storage places of said materials above and forth. The "Times Building 
 at Los Angeles was destroyed by the use of dynamite" on October i, 
 1910, and twenty-one persons killed, "and immediately after the happening 
 of this event arrangements were made to have an explosion in the 
 eastern part of the United States, as an echo in the East of what had 
 occurred at Los Angeles." Prior to "the arrest of the McNamaras and 
 
152 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 McManigal," seven or eight explosions were planned "to take place in 
 different parts of the country widely separated on the same night." All 
 the dynamite and nitroglycerine, "except the dynamite that was stolen, 
 the batteries, clocks, caps, fuse and attachments, suit cases and carrying 
 cases, as well as the expense and work for carrying the explosives and 
 articles to be used in connection therewith, including the expense incident 
 to the stealing of dynamite, were paid out of the funds of the inter- 
 national association, and these funds were drawn from the association 
 upon checks signed by the secretary-treasurer, John J. McNamara, and 
 by the president, Frank M. Ryan," plaintiff in error. * * * 
 
 One feature of circumstantial evidence is brought out by the testi- 
 mony and justly pressed for consideration, as tending to prove the con- 
 spiracy in all its phases, namely: That use of explosives for destruction 
 of property as described embraced exclusively "open-shop concerns" and 
 was continuous and systematic from the commencement of such course 
 up to the time of the above-mentioned arrest of the McNamaras and 
 McManigal, and then ceased throughout the country. * * * 
 
 We are of opinion, therefore, that the general challenge for insuf- 
 ficiency of evidence must be overruled; that support for the charge of 
 conspiracy, to say the least, by no means rests on the testimony of 
 McManigal; and that no error appears in submission of his testimony 
 for consideration of the jury. * * * 
 
 The assignments on behalf of plaintiff in error Ryan are overruled, 
 and the judgment against him must be affirmed. 
 
 Use of Gunmen by Unions 
 
 (From New York Sun of May 14, 1915. The employment 
 of gun-men by New York City unions is revealed.) 
 
 The deeper Assistant District Attorney Breckenridge delves into 
 the alliance between union men and gangsters the more startling becomes 
 his discoveries. He has found and expects to prove that the despotic 
 ring which ruled by force in the garment workers' union resolved itself 
 in a secret tribunal and dealt out punishment to non-union men and 
 recalcitrant union members ; to be called before that body meant a 
 beating, maiming, and in some cases death. 
 
 These mock courts, termed "bloody assizes" by their victims, sat 
 after -strike meetings of business sessions in halls that the union leaders 
 hired in many parts of the city and sometimes in local headquarters. 
 After the ordinary business was finished a few officials with some of 
 their strong-arm men would form around a table with one man sitting 
 as judge. They had what was known as a bailiff, and the man accused 
 was addressed as the defendant. 
 
 Generally one or two men were tolled off to do the actual slugging. 
 If a man protested that he was not non-union he was knocked down. 
 If he became so infuriated as to call his accuser a liar he was beaten 
 into insensibility. Mr. Breckenridge knows of three men who had ears 
 cut off, and charges at least one murder as the result of one of these 
 trials. 
 
 There are no indictments against the employers, Mr. Breckenridge 
 
INDUSTRIAL WARFARE 153 
 
 said yesterday, because there has been nothing brought out in the investi- 
 gation to show that the employers did more than try to defend them- 
 selves against assault 
 
 "We have got the gangsters and the labor men working against each 
 other," he said, "and they are giving each other up. They are running 
 for cover, so deep in the system has the investigation gone, and they are 
 cutting each other's throats in the effort to gain protection for them- 
 selves. There has never been such a revelation." 
 
 (Testimony of Arthur Woods, Police Commissioner of 
 New York City, before the Industrial Relations Commission, May 
 12, 1915. Pages 10553-10558 of testimony. Official confirma- 
 tion of statements made in the New York Sun.) 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH: Has any investigation of the use of these 
 gunmen in connection with industrial disputes ever been made before to 
 your knowledge in New York, Mr. Woods? 
 
 MR. WOODS : Well, I cannot give you conclusively information about 
 that, but I should say nothing like so thorough going as this. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : Has any investigation been made to ascertain 
 whether or not they were used in other places than New York City? 
 
 MR. WOODS : I can not tell you that ; there was a recent disturbance 
 at Roosevelt, N. J., which you remember, and it was alleged that New 
 York gunmen had been brought out there; I think probably they had. 
 But it has been brought out in that investigation that New York gunmen 
 have been taken to other cities; we have definite instances where they 
 have been taken to Chicago, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other 
 cities. One 01 tne extraordinary features of the case is that in connection 
 with strikes where women are employed. Women are used as "gun- 
 women," so to speak. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH: What organizations are affected by these in- 
 dictments? What labor organizations were found to have taken those 
 men, to have used these people? 
 
 MR. WOODS: The indictments had not been found when I left the 
 city; all I can tell you would be what is contained in the newspapers. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: The organization known on the east side 
 as the central body of Hebrew organizations in the east side? 
 
 MR. WOODS: Yes; I think so. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: As a result of your investigation, what 
 have you found to be the method of procedure in industrial troubles; do 
 these gangsters offer their services to both sides, and take the highest 
 bidder, or do they confine their operations and offer their services to one 
 side of the labor trouble? 
 
 MR. WOODS: I should not say it was "offering their services," but 
 the result of our investigation shows a course of procedure like this; 
 there would be a strike and the strikers would retain some gunmen to do 
 whatever forcible or violent work they needed. The employer, to meet 
 this violence, would, in a comparatively small percentage of cases, and 
 not as many cases as the gunmen were employed on the other side, would 
 hire a private detective agency. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: Now, when the unions employed- these 
 gunmen, what function were the gunmen expected to perform? 
 
154 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 MR. WOODS : To intimidate workers that were hired to take the 
 place of the strikers. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: That is so-called scabs? 
 
 MR. WOODS: Yes, sir; so-called scabs. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: Have there been instances where there 
 has been violence against the so-called scabs? 
 
 MR. WJOODS: Yes, sir. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: To what degree? 
 
 MR. WOODS : Oh, to a very strong violence. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: Have they committed murder? 
 
 MR. WOODS : Yes, sir ; I think that is being brought out now. As I 
 remember it last night in the newspaper article there were three indict- 
 ments for murder in the first degree. 
 
 No Limit to Intimidation 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: There is no limit then to what degree 
 they will go to intimidate the so-called scabs? 
 
 MR. WOODS : No. Now, there was a case that was noticed a good 
 deal in the newspapers a while ago of an innocent man by the name of 
 Straus, who was shot and killed on the east side. The Dopey Benny 
 gang was employed by the strikers and some other gangsters were 
 employed by the employers ; I can not remember which particular gang it 
 was. One of the Dopey Benny gang had been killed by one of the other 
 gang. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: Competing gangs? 
 
 MR. WOODS: Yes; one gang employed by one side, and one gang 
 by the other side. I may have things a little twisted here, but the gang 
 that killed the member of the other gang was holding a ball, and the 
 other gang came up to get revenge for the killing, and the man that 
 they tried to shoot jumped behind this perfectly innocent citizen, Straus, 
 and Straus was killed. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: Now, are the so-called gangs of gunmen 
 confined to the east side of New York, or are there other gangs in other 
 parts of the city? 
 
 MR. WOODS : There are gangs in other parts of the city. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: And as a result of your experience 
 you have found that employers are guilty of resorting to the methods you 
 condemn, and likewise the labor unions have resorted to the methods that 
 you condemn? 
 
 MR. WOODS: Yes, sir; that there were two points that ought to be 
 considered in connection with that; so far we have not found the direct 
 employment of gunmen except by strikers. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: The employment by employers has been 
 indirect? 
 
 MR. WOODS : The employment by employers has been indirect, through 
 private detective agencies, and we have found far more employment of 
 gunmen by strikers than by employers. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: In how far have your investigations 
 warranted this statement that appears following: 
 
INDUSTRIAL WARFARE 155 
 
 "Several of the indictments mention assaults upon members of the 
 union, and in this connection District Attorney Perkins said last night 
 that the reign of lawlessness was caused by union leaders who wished 
 to perpetuate themselves in power, who hired assassins to assault con- 
 tenders in their own union for their places, and who used offices to 
 extort blackmail under threats from employers. 
 
 "Seven men are indicted for assault in a riot for control of a union. 
 Four men are indicted for hiring Dopey Benny's band to go to a non- 
 union factory and 'rough house' the employes as they left, and 'wreck' 
 the plant. A dozen workers were wounded in that fight. 
 
 "Six union men are accused of extortion and assault in using violence 
 to collect a fine of $100 upon an employer. Four others are accused 
 of hiring the Dopey Benny band to shoot up a non-union factory. Many 
 shots were fired, the factory suffered a damage of $1,000, and several 
 persons were injured. Other indictments mention cases where the band 
 was employed by union leaders to attack non-union workers, to wreck 
 factories, and even to assault men who opposed the leaders." 
 
 Does your investigation substantiate those statements here? 
 
 MR. WOODS: Yes, sir; that is the general line of things that we 
 found. All that sort of thing. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: So that this is not mere newspaper exag- 
 geration, to your knowledge? 
 
 MR. WOODS: No, sir. 
 
 Unions Try to Tell State Governor What To Do 
 
 Testimony of Mrs. Mary ("Mother") Jones, before the 
 Industrial Relations Commission, May 14, 1915. Pages 10,643 
 and 10,644 of testimony. "We simply got our guns and ammuni- 
 tion * * * and the fight began.") 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: From what you have explained, Mother 
 Jones, it is evident that some explanation is needed. There appears in 
 the record of the congressional committee, a copy of which I have here, 
 setting forth a hearing before a sub-committee of the Committee on Mines 
 and Mining of the House of Representatives, a statement attributed to 
 you, which evidently is a mistake, and does you a grave injustice, and I 
 think you should be afforded an opportunity at this hearing for the pur- 
 poses of our record to correct it. 
 
 Among other things you are alleged to have said, speaking, I think, 
 of some labor trouble in West Virginia: 
 
 "We told him we lived in America beneath the flag for which our 
 fathers fought; that we lived in the United States, and we had a right 
 and had a ground to fight on; and we asked the governor to abolish 
 the Baldwin guards. That was the chief thing I was after, and I tell 
 you the truth, because I knew when we cleaned them out other things 
 would come with it. 
 
 "So I said in the article we will give the governor until eight o'clock 
 to-morrow evening to get rid of the Baldwin guards, and if he don't 
 do business we will do business. I called the committee, and I said, 'Here, 
 take this document and go into the governor's office and present it to him. 
 
156 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Now, don't get on your knees; you don't need to get on your knees; 
 we have no kings in America; stand on both feet, with your heads erect 
 and present that document to the governor.' And they said, 'Will we 
 wait ?' I said, 'No, don't wait, and don't say, "Your honor," ' said I, 
 because few of these fellows have any honor and don't know what it is. 
 
 "When we adjourned the meeting and saw we were not going to 
 get any help, I said, 'We will protect ourselves and buy every gun in 
 Charleston.' There was not a gun left in Charleston ; and we did it openly, 
 no underhanded business about it, for I don't believe in it at all. We 
 simply got our guns and ammunition and walked down to the camps, 
 and the fight began." 
 
 Now, as one who believes in law and order and obeying the law, 
 there must be some mistake, or you were misquoted, and this is an 
 opportunity for you to correct it. 
 
 MOTHER JONES: I am going to tell you about that. I made that 
 speech, not in Trinidad, but on the steps of the state house in Charleston. 
 The strike was not on very long three or four months, I think three 
 months and I did so, and the governor stood there, and the whole state 
 house administration was there. When I said, "We demand of the gov- 
 ernor to abolish the Baldwin guards," I did so; I don't deny it. 
 
 Former Public Official Describes Violence 
 
 (From an article by Joseph M. Brown, former governor of 
 Georgia, reprinted in the La Grange, Georgia, Reporter, July 
 16, 1920). 
 
 In 1912, the Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway 
 Employes of America, organized the street car employes of Augusta. On 
 September 23d that year they went on a strike which lasted till October 
 ipth. 
 
 During this strike, two loyal employes were murdered one night at 
 the end of their run in the outskirts of the city. Besides these, from 
 fifteen to eighteen men, mostly loyal employes were either shot or brutally 
 beaten and many more people, some of them passengers, were injured by 
 flying missiles. 
 
 On call of the Mayor of Augusta, I as Governor, ordered out the 
 local military to protect the city from rioting strikers. Three citizens 
 were killed by the military while trying to ride through the cordon around 
 the car barn despite the command to halt. One of these was a strike 
 sympathizer who fired at the captain and was then instantly shot dead by 
 the sentries. By the strike the street car company suffered considerable 
 property loss, such as damage to cars, to overhead lines, to tracks and 
 switches and to its buildings. 
 
 Since I wrote the above words I have received a letter from a 
 prominent citizen who was in Augusta during the entire period of the 
 strike. From him I learn that women and children were attacked; one 
 woman was shot ; several non-union men were known to have been killed, 
 and several non-union men disappeared in riots and have never been heard 
 of since. An eight-year-old boy was driven from school and his father's 
 family had to be protected by guards. The Mayor, who asked for the 
 
INDUSTRIAL WARFARE 157 
 
 military for enforcing law and order, found it necessary to have guards 
 placed around his home for protection to himself and family. 
 
 Are Employers Responsible for Violence? 
 
 (From testimony before the Industrial Relations Commis- 
 sion, July 21 and July 22, 1914, of Mr. Dudley Taylor, general 
 counsel for the Employers Association of Chicago. Picketing 
 and violence are discussed by Mr. Taylor.) 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: You also made the statement that your 
 association furnished guards in labor troubles. 
 
 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: Have you read Robert Hunter's work 
 on labor troubles? 
 
 MR. TAYLOR: No. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: He holds employers responsible for vio- 
 lence in labor troubles on the ground that they employ detectives and gun- 
 men, and these detectives go into the labor unions as spotters and incite 
 violence, and compel the employer to increase his force of guards, and 
 that increases business for the detective agencies and that if the employ- 
 ers would cease to employ guards it would wipe out violence in labor 
 troubles; what is your view as to that? 
 
 MR. TAYLOR: He certainly greatly overstates or over-exaggerates. 
 Our system is to have the addresses of a number of guards who are 
 available when necessity arises. We send one guard or two guards, or 
 possibly three or four, depending on the number of employes and their 
 routes in going to and from their homes. We send them to the plant, 
 and one guard probably takes a half dozen men under his charge and 
 escorts them from the plant to the street car or the elevator, and some 
 of them in their homes. I can recall only one case in the last ten years 
 of my association where it is claimed or charged that a guard had 
 been guilty of any violence or wrongdoing. My whole experience 
 has been that the guards do not foment any trouble : they are not allowed 
 to do anything of the sort; there has never been anything of that sort. 
 Now, it might be that in mining districts there has been something of 
 that kind; I don't know, but I am speaking of the city of Chicago. You 
 will find that in the strikes here where guards have been sent out, one, 
 two, or three guards as the case may be, that the workmen would not go 
 to and from the plant without guards, and that the guards do not make 
 trouble and there is no trouble so far as they are concerned. There is 
 only one case of trouble being made by a guard that I remember. 
 
 (From testimony before the Industrial Relations Commis- 
 sion, July 23, 1914, of Mr. John M. Glenn, secretary of the 
 Illinois Manufacturers' Association. Page 3303 of the record. 
 Mr. Glenn shows the necessity employers are under of having 
 "guards" in time of strike.) 
 
 I have seen the question raised here as to whether it ever did partici- 
 pate in violence. I don't know. My experience has been a little broad 
 
158 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 as far as this community is concerned. I was in the newspaper business 
 here for a long while. I have been in a great many strikes; I have seen 
 a great deal of violence one way and another; I had more or less to do 
 with the labor troubles that took place in 1886 here, and in 1894, and 
 other times and I don't see how labor organizations the way they are 
 constituted, can maintain their position without force, and I was surprised 
 to see the question raised here that it did not use force. The employer 
 I don't see any necessity for his guarding his property if there is not 
 violence. The first act of violence is in the strike. They start the 
 strike. I tried to put some men to work and the labor organization tries 
 to stop me. Then there is naturally a conflict, and the kettle calls the 
 pot black and vice versa, and there they go. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: You heard the testimony of Mr. Fitz- 
 patrick? 
 
 MR. GLENN: Yes, sir. 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: And he takes the ground that offensive 
 acts of violence were initiated by the employers and of the workers en- 
 gaged in violence it was defensive. What is your opinion on that score? 
 
 MR. GLENN : How could that be ? How could I take the initiative ? 
 Suppose I am running a plant and my men have struck why should I 
 introduce violence in the situation? What I am trying to do is run the 
 plant. I try to get some other men if the old men won't come back. The 
 first act of violence if the employer is honest and the unions are fair 
 the first act of violence must come from the men who go out whether 
 organized or not organized. 
 
 Why "Guards" Are Employed 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Earl Constantine, then manager of 
 the Employers Association of Washington, before the Industrial 
 Relations Commission, August 6, 1914. Lack of protection by 
 civil authorities, is said to be the chief cause for employment of 
 private detectives during labor troubles.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Referring to the question of private detectives 
 during the time of labor trouble, what is your opinion on that subject, 
 if you have one, and what are the reasons back of it? 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: I believe when a plant, or manufacturer, or em- 
 ployer is facing a condition where there is violence, or destruction of 
 property either actually going on or distinctly promised and approaching, 
 or any danger of life and limb, that the employer is fully entitled to 
 protection, even if it means doubling of the police force. I would not 
 think violence should be countenanced on the part of the individual or 
 on the part of an organization any more than an individual. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : What would you say with reference to the right 
 of an employer to hire private detectives? 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: I don't think an employer would ever seek or 
 think of suggesting the employment of private detectives if given full 
 protection on the part of the public authorities. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: From your investigation of that subject, do you 
 
INDUSTRIAL WARFARE 159 
 
 believe generally in the United States the employer does hire private 
 detectives in labor disputes like strikes? 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: I suppose there are places in the country where 
 that is attempted more or less. In the State of Washington it is not 
 countenanced. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: It is not countenanced? 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: No, sir; it is rather rare, I would put it. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: The mayor, I think, testified this morning it had 
 been done here. 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: As I gather from the testimony of the mayor, 
 he was referring to the Ballard strike here in the city, where the city 
 is said to have not offered extra protection and the sheriff of the county 
 swore in deputies and sent them out, and in some cases deputized em- 
 ployes of the employer. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Take that case and the other cases which you say 
 have existed in this country, do you believe in the principle of the employ- 
 ment by the employer of private guards or private detectives, or what- 
 ever you may call them, in time of strike and lockout? 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: I think that basically it is not a good principle, 
 but I think that the fact is that generally the employer is not in position 
 to get the protection he is entitled to and that creates a condition where 
 for the protection of life, as much as for the protection of property, 
 he should have the right to take and deputize employes, or get them 
 deputized, rather, to guard his plant. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : It has been said by some that this is the only 
 country among civilized nations where such a condition is permitted; 
 that in the old countries of Europe France, Germany, England, and 
 the like private guards are not permitted at all. 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: That is probably true, because the enforcement 
 of law is more observed. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Would that be your reason for the difference? 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: I believe so. I happen to have lived in -Europe 
 and know about something of that. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Is that all the reason you care to give, or is there 
 anything else? 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: I think that is sufficient. 
 
 Civil Authorities Should Enforce Laws 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. J. V. Paterson, president of the 
 Seattle Construction and Drydock Company, before the Indus- 
 trial Relations Commission, August 13, 1914. Page 4314 of the 
 record. The testimony of Mr. Paterson supports the position 
 taken by Mr. Constantine.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : How do you personally that is, apart from your 
 association, how do you personally view the employment of private 
 guards by employers in times of trouble? 
 
 MR. PATERSON : As a disgrace to the community. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : That is, you think it should not be necessary? 
 
 MR. PATERSON: Yes, sir. 
 
160 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Do you think it necessary generally? 
 
 MR. PATERSON : It isn't necessary if the city authorities act. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Some people say that this is an institution peculiar 
 to this country; that in the other countries of western civilized lands that 
 that is not done. 
 
 MR. PATERSON: I am sorry to say that is true. 
 
 MR.. THOMPSON: What is your reason for that? What is the cause 
 of that difference? 
 
 MR. PATERSON : Well, I have personally given this matter some 
 attention, and every person who gets into office here, I don't say every 
 person, there may be an occasional exception has hopes of a further 
 office, an office a little higher, and he has been taught by the noise the 
 union creates, that the unions have a tremendous power in the elections, 
 and accordingly he plays to the unions. We have some examples here in 
 town. 
 
UNLAWFUL ACTS CONDONED BY UNIONS 161 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Unlawful Acts Condoned by Unions 
 
 In many cases, of course, violence which takes place during 
 strikes is the result of acts by irresponsible individuals. While 
 the closed shop unions may cause disputes which otherwise would 
 not exist, still we cannot hold them responsible for the acts of 
 individuals. 
 
 The case is different, however, if, by subsequent acts, they 
 show or express approval of acts of force. Nor is it sufficient to 
 say, as has been said, "Our acts are no different than that of a 
 church in taking back to its breast a repentant sinner." What 
 church takes back a sinner and then elevates him almost at once < y 
 to high position? 
 
 Press dispatches state that the United Mine Workers of 
 America have announced that it will support to the utmost 
 twenty-four men, most of them members of the union, accused of 
 nurder in West Virginia. It is recalled, that eleven Arkansas 
 nembers of the United Mine Workers pleaded guilty to various 
 offenses against state and national laws. The union paid the fines 
 >f all these men and rewarded most of them by elections or 
 ippointments to union offices. 
 
 The Menace to Public Order 
 
 We have been informed on the highest possible authority that 
 everal times the organized employes in Washington, D. C, have 
 hreatened to go on strike and tie up every public utility in the 
 )istrict, even the water supply for the 450,000 people. So far 
 hey have simply "threatened," but the issue raised in the Boston 
 'olice Strike, as to the right of government employes to strike 
 nd subject government business to the demands of any group, 
 > one which must be carefully considered. 
 
 (Testimony of Anton Johannsen, formerly business agent for 
 le Almagated Wood Workers and State Organizers of the 
 alifornia Building Trades Council, then General Organizer for 
 le United Brotherhood of Carpenters, before the Industrial 
 elations Commission, May 14, 1915. Page 10672 of testimony. 
 Ir. Johannsen here says that "every man" that was convicted of 
 ic dynamite outrages was re-elected. Of the thirty-eight men 
 mvicted at least twenty-one have since held union offices.) 
 
OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 I am glad to say that every union of ironworkers had sufficient socia 
 courage and loyalty to reelect every man that was convicted. Wrier 
 they went to prison they took care of the families, and those that are ir 
 prison now, including old lady McNamara. When they went to prisor 
 the first thing we did in our state convention in Los Angeles we sus- 
 pended all rules and order of business, and took up the first thing, th< 
 reelection of general secretary and treasurer, and executive board mem 
 bers, and elected Tveitmoe and Clancey by acclamation, and it was th< 
 first time this proceeding ever took place in our convention. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. James H. Maurer, president o: 
 the Pennsylvania Federation of Labor, before the Industrial Rela 
 tions Commission, June 27, 1914. Page 2965 of the record. Th< 
 "Brindeir of years ago honored by unions after his release fron 
 prison. ) 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK: Then how do you explain the pe 
 culiar phenomenon that when Sam Parks, who was an avowed grafter 
 came out of jail he' was made the marshal of a Labor Day parade an< 
 greeted as a great hero? 
 
 MR. MAURER : Well, the New York movement and the Chicago move 
 ment and the Frisco movement are tailenders, if you will pardon me 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK : Well, we deserve it all right. 
 
 MR. MAURER: Are part of the tail end of the old movement. W 
 have men in this state who are of the old school, and it is not fair fr 
 judge the whole labor movement by the shortcomings of some' renegade 
 in it. When you speak of Parks, why, he of course, was held up as 
 martyr; just the same as most any other great question; the great mas 
 are poorly informed as a rule. And then again, the fact that he ma; 
 have been made marshal, I don't know the details, but it is easy to do i 
 if a committee like himself in control of the demonstration just simpl; 
 says so and the rank and file may parade along and won't even know wh 
 is up front. But I would not think for a minute of trying to leave th 
 impression that the rank and file at this age has any sentiment at all fo 
 such people. There are, however, conditions when men we know hav 
 been persecuted and, we believe innocent, and sometimes even though w 
 believe they are guilty, we believe their guilt was justified and we wi 
 fight for them. 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN WEINSTOCK : Is this true, Mr. Maurer, that whil 
 on the one hand organized labor in its published statements takes th 
 ground that it stands up for law and order and that it is opposed t 
 violence in labor troubles; that when members of organised labor comm 
 violence, organised labor, as a rule, stands behind them, on the groun 
 that they committed this violence in the interest of labor and, therefor 
 right or wrong, labor must stand behind them? 
 
 MR. MAURER: Yes; I think that is right, too. 
 
 Facts Set Forth in Supreme Court Decision 
 
 (The following sentences from the decision of the Unite 
 States Supreme Court, January 3, 1921, in the case of the Duple 
 Printing Company vs. Deering, is an official arraignment of close 
 
UNLAWFUL ACTS CONDONED BY UNIONS 163 
 
 shop tactics. The International Association of Machinists resorted 
 to a country-wide boycott to force the Duplex Company to main- 
 tain a closed shop. Practically every closed shop paper and leader 
 in the country has denounced the decision of the Court, which 
 said the Clayton Act did not give legal sanction to such perform- 
 ances.) 
 
 The acts complained of made up the details of an elaborate program 
 adopted and carried out by defendants and their organizations in and 
 about the City of New York as part of a country-wide program ( adopted 
 by the International Association, for the purpose of enforcing a boycott 
 of complainant's product. The acts embraced the following, with others: 
 warning customers that it would be better for them not to purchase, or 
 having purchased not to install, presses made by complainant, and threaten- 
 ing them with loss should they do so; threatening customers with sym- 
 pathetic strikes in other trades ; notifying a trucking company usually 
 employed by crstomers to haul the presses, not to do so, and threatening 
 it with trouble if it should; inciting employes of the trucking company, 
 and other men employed by customers of complainant, to strike against 
 their respective employers in order to interfere with the hauling and 
 installation of presses, and thus bring pressure to bear upon the custo- 
 mers; notifying repair shops not to do repair work on Duplex presses; 
 coercing union men by threatening them with loss of union cards and 
 with being blacklisted as "scabs" if they assisted in installing the presses; 
 threatening an exposition company with a strike if it permitted com- 
 plainant's presses to be exhibited; and resorting to a variety of other 
 modes of preventing the sale of presses of complainant's manufacture in 
 or about New York City, and delivery of them in interstate commerce, 
 such as injuring and threatening to injure complainant's customers and 
 prospective customers, and persons concerned in hauling, handling, or 
 installing the presses. In some cases the threats were undisguised, in 
 other cases polite in form but none the less sinister in purpose and 
 effect. All the judges of the Circuit Court of Appeals concurred in the 
 view that defendants' conduct consisted essentially of efforts to render 
 it impossible for complainant to carry on any commerce in printing 
 presses between Michigan and New York. 
 
 . "Fidelity" and "Manslaughter" 
 
 (The following is from the Little Rock New Sky Line of 
 February 19, 1921.) 
 
 Al Shrum, a member of the Electrical Workers' Union No. 59 of 
 Dallas, was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the killing of 
 an employe of the Texas Light & Power Company during their strike 
 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He was pardoned by Gov- 
 ernor Hobby recently. 
 
 In reporting a reception given him by his union, we quote the fol- 
 lowing paragraph from The Craftsman, the Dallas labor paper: 
 
 "When it comes to entertaining, we tip our hat to Electrical Workers' 
 
164 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Union No. 59 of Dallas, for we are frank to say that one of the most 
 enjoyable evenings we ever spent was as a guest of these 'boys' Monday 
 night at a 'smoker' given in their hall in Labor Temple IN HONOR of 
 the return home of BRO. AL SHRUM, who has been 'absent' from the 
 city for several months BECAUSE OF HIS LOYALTY TO THE 
 LOCAL AND HIS FIDELITY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF COL- 
 LECTIVE BARGAINING." 
 
 Who Will Defend These Practices? 
 
 Governor Kilby of Alabama was accepted by both operators 
 and United Mine Workers as an arbitrator whose decision they 
 would accept, in the Alabama coal strike. His findings were 
 announced March 19, 1921. Among other things he said: 
 
 "This strike, being called without just cause or for the purpose oi 
 remedying any grievance, and in deliberate violation of an agreement, was 
 'illegal and immoral' ! It proves beyond cavil that the written contract o, 
 obligation of the United Mine Workers of America cannot be relied on 
 and that recognition would give no assurance of industrial peace. 
 
 "The United Mine Workers has counselled and directed the violatioi 
 of the laws of Alabama." 
 
 A news item in the Chicago Tribune of May n, 1921, reads 
 
 "A jury in Judge Thomas Taylor's court yesterday found Edwin E 
 Graves of Boston, international vice-president of the Upholsterers' unior 
 and Roy F. Hall, business agent of Chicago local No. in, guilty in con 
 spiracy charges. * * * 
 
 The indictments grew out of violence and destruction of propert 
 which marked the upholsterers' strike in Chicago more than a yea 
 ago. * * * 
 
 "For more than a year Graves fought extradition, taking the case u 
 to' the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. He had come from Boston earl 
 in the strike and directed its activities. 
 
 "Samuel Fisher, principal witness for the state, told a story of havir 
 been hired by Graves and Hall to carry on a campaign of terror 1 
 slugging employes and employers in the upholstery industry. He quote 
 his prices for broken noses, arms> and heads as ranging from $10. to $100 
 
MONOPOLY ASPECTS OF CLOSED SHOP UNIONISM 165 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 Monopoly Aspects of Closed Shop Unionism 
 
 In the closed shop the union principle is extended to include 
 a monopoly. As Ernest F. Lloyd in his monograph on "The 
 Closed Union Shop, the Open Shop" declares : "In such a shop a 
 worker refusing or refused membership in the union of his trade 
 must by that fact be refused employment or be discharged by an 
 employer. A power to thus exclude is in industry a power to 
 unreasonably restrain trade. Hence it is conceded to be contrary 
 to public policy and agreements to effect it are legally non-enforce- 
 able." He further says : "If a group can cause the exclusion of 
 others, or can restrict them or its own members in the exercise 
 of their trade functions, it thereby makes it possible to * * * 
 create, in other words an artificial scarcity." The public itself 
 must decide whether it will sanction by its sympathy and sup- 
 port this effort to establish a monopoly in the labor market. 
 
 As pointed out before these monopolistic organizations are 
 not financially responsible for violations of contracts duly made, 
 or for damages caused during labor disputes. They have many 
 times, when suit for damages was brought, simply given the 
 answer that as they have not chosen to incorporate they cannot 
 be held legally responsible for damages arising from their actions. 
 
 Such a condition is conducive neither to efficiency nor har- 
 mony in industry, two attributes with which the public is vitally 
 concerned. About one hundred years ago corporations, associ- 
 ations of individuals for purposes of business, began to assume 
 prominence. Since 1870 both states and national governments 
 have placed restrictions upon these associations, restrictions 
 designed to benefit the members or stockholders, other associ- 
 ations, and the general public. Their manner of organization 
 and methods of business are carefully regulated by law. Yet the 
 labor organizations which sponsor the closed shop bitterly oppose 
 any and all efforts to regulate their monopoly and actions,although 
 they have millions of members and millions of dollars, their acts 
 affecting the general public for good or ill as much certainly as 
 any business aggregation has ever done or has ever threatened to 
 do. If the public has a right to regulate business and make it 
 conform to certain standards, has it not the same right to regulate 
 combinations of labor ? 
 
i66 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Closed Shop Tactics 
 
 The Minnesota Daily Star, Non-Partisan League and unioi 
 labor daily, reports that the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembl; 
 is going to take a census of all St. Paul business and professiona 
 men on the open shop issue. The Star, which is published b; 
 closed shop supporters, says: "By definitely estabishing th 
 position of these firms and organizations, the public can b 
 informed with whom to deal." 
 
 According to the Seattle Union Record of December 16, IQ2C 
 the retail clerks of that city want every patron of a store or sho 
 to demand that the clerk waiting on him show his union member 
 ship card. 
 
 In order to combat the open shop the Trades and Labo 
 Assembly of St. Paul instructed its memlbers to make absolute! 
 no Christmas purchases in the loop district during the holida 
 season except positive necessities. All of the big retail stores bt 
 two were included. 
 
 Candy Workers' Local Union No. 156, Seattle, tried t 
 induce every eater of Christmas candy to insist that the unio 
 label be on every box purchased during the holiday season. 
 
 The American Federation of Labor is said to be preparin 
 to start a nation-wide campaign to organize office help. Commei 
 cial stenographers, bookkeepers and clerks are to be organize 
 into the "Labor Defense League." 
 
 The Epworth League of Kansas has been officially declare 
 "unfair" to union labor. 
 
 How Far Would They Go? 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Edward L. Doyle, secretary-trea; 
 urer, United Mine Workers, Denver District, before the Indu; 
 trial Relations Commission, December 14, 1914. Page 6971 c 
 the record. Italics ours.) 
 
 MR. DOYLE: An employer has a right to employ anyone he se* 
 fit. Your question being a broad and general one, I would ask tl 
 privilege of making a statement in connection therewith. The assumptk 
 that a man should have the right to work, as I understand your questio 
 in any particular industry, simply because he had been so employed 1 
 the operator of that industry, without being compelled to join a lab 
 organization is considered, talked of as a right. It is only considered up< 
 the surface, and they never go below the surface to discuss that and ha 
 it out whether it is a right or a wrong. And I might say here th 
 anyone that goes into an industry to work, if there is an organization 
 
MONOPOLY ASPECTS OF CLOSED SHOP UNIONISM 167 
 
 that industry, he should be compelled to become a member of that organ- 
 isation. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. E. B. Ault, editor of the Seattle 
 Union Record, official organ of the Central Labor Council, before 
 the Industrial Relations Commission. August 12, 1914.) 
 
 ACTING CHAIRMAN COMMONS: So that, then, you would have the 
 Government require employers to hire union men? 
 
 MR. AULT: Well, that is a hard question. I think that it is a rea- 
 sonable proposition that employers should be required to hire union- men. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Will you be in favor of any form of coercion to 
 compel third parties, not union people, but the public generally, to help 
 in the boycott? Would you have the plumber refuse to repair the plumb- 
 ing in the house of a man that bought good that were unfair? 
 
 MR. AULT: Yes, sir. 
 
 Said John Mitchell, president of the United Mine Workers, 
 in 1903 : 
 
 "With the rapid extension of trade unions, the tendency is toward 
 growth of compulsory membership in them, and the time will doubtless 
 come when this inclusion will become as general and will become as 
 little of a grievance as the compulsory attendance at school." 
 
 The Views of Economists 
 
 (From "Modern Economic Problem," Volume II, by Dr. 
 Frank A. Fetter, Professor of Economics, Princeton University. 
 Pages 309-312. Dr. Fetter explains the methods by which unions 
 apparently raise wages.) 
 
 The action of organized labor is not, however, limited to the com- 
 petitive field, above discussed. Wages in particular industries may, by 
 the action of trade unions be raised and maintained above a true com- 
 petitive rate. This of course can be done only in accordance with the 
 principles of the service value to the consumer and of service price in 
 the employment-market. The supply of labor is in a variety of ways 
 artificially limited by the efforts of the unions. It may be done temporarily 
 by striking when a failure to fill orders will cause the employer excep- 
 tional loss. Violence in strikes and boycotts is often the desperate attempt 
 to create and assert a measure of monopoly power where of itself it 
 does not exist, i. e., where other workers stand ready to take the jobs > 
 at the prevailing rates of wages. Monopoly is created if apprentices L_ 
 are limited to fewer than in the long run would be attracted into the I 
 trade by the prevailing wages. It is created if the unions artificially limit 
 output to less than is consistent with the health of the worker. Monopoly 
 is created if unions strong enough to keep "scabs" from getting work, 
 fix their dues high or put other obstacles in the way of increasing the 
 membership. Probably the most striking cases of high wages for organ- 
 ized labor are of this kind. 
 
 The element of labor-monopoly evidently is mingled in all degrees 
 
168 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 from the slightest to a very great amount, in particular economic situa- 
 tions. 
 
 Open vs. Closed Shop 
 
 The question of labor monopoly is involved in the very crucial ques- 
 tion of the closed versus the open shop. A closed shop (or union shop) 
 is a shop in which no non-union men may be employed, even at union 
 wages. Its existence is evidence that the union is strong enough to 
 compel the employer to act on this principle and thus virtually to force 
 all his employes into the union. The refusal of a demand for the closed 
 shop is often the ground for a strike. Where this is so unions usually 
 assert that the closed shop is essential to the existence of the union. If 
 union and non-union men work side by side there are many ways in 
 which the employer is able to discriminate so as gradually to break down 
 the union. If business slackens, the union man may be the first to be dis- 
 charged ; if any preference is given it is to the non-union man. While 
 this may be true, it would seem, on the other hand, that an unmodified 
 closed shop, with the conditions of membership in the control of the 
 union, creates a distinct monopoly of labor leaving the employer help- 
 less in any wage dispute and enabling the union to enforce its every demand 
 regardless of the competitive conditions of the labor-market for that 
 class of services. 
 
 Political and Economic Considerations 
 
 The question here takes on a broad aspect. Is the closed shop, and 
 are the other policies of trade unions, morally right, and ought they to 
 be legally sanctioned? The answer to such questions is not for the 
 economist alone to give. The questions involve other than economic 
 considerations. They involve moral and political considerations not 
 merely existing formal law, but the fundamental issue of personal liberty 
 and of interference with the liberty of some citizens by another group act- 
 ing without political authority. For example, if a workman is unable 
 to earn the standard rate and is not permitted to take less, he is forced 
 to move to a place where there is no union, or is forced out of the trade 
 entirely. In the latter case, he probably is compelled to take a lower 
 wage than he could get in his regular occupation. Likewise, this change 
 artificially increases the pressure of competition and reduces the wages 
 of others in the occupation to which he turns. So in the case of persons 
 prevented from becoming apprentices in a trade, or kept from taking 
 work by threats, or by the dread of boycott, or by the fear of violence 
 in any degree, however slight, there is present an element of persona) 
 coercion by the organized laborers. This is the price others are made tc 
 pay for a favorable effect on the wages of the organized laborers. No\i 
 the strictly economic question concerns merely the part as to the effects 
 upon wages, and the economist (as such) is going outside of his spe- 
 cial field when he pronounces on the moral rectitude (and the desirabilit) 
 in law) of such, acts and policies. 
 
 One who fully shares the feelings of the organized workers wil 
 believe that the winning of a strike or the general improvement of th< 
 strikers' condition is so important that it outweighs the evils to othe 
 
MONOPOLY ASPECTS OF CLOSED SHOP UNIONISM 169 
 
 individuals and to society as a whole. Indeed, to one in that state of 
 mind the evils appear very small or non-existent. The economist can only 
 issue the warning that the commonest illusion he encounters is the belief 
 of each class commercial, banking, manufacturing, wage-earning that 
 which is for its particular interest is, in a peculiar manner, for the general 
 interest, so much as to justify favoring legislation or special exemption 
 from the general law, or even sheer lawlessness. 
 
 The Public's View of Unions 
 
 We may, however, observe the view of the onlooker striving to be 
 impartial. The attitude of the public in labor disputes, and particularly 
 in regard to the closed shop, is a vacillating one. The general public 
 sympathizes in large measure with the unions in their efforts up to a 
 more or less uncertain point; but the public does not like to see organ- 
 ized labor with the power to dictate terms absolutely to the employers 
 any more than it likes to see employers crush the union. The unions 
 are effective in varying degrees in strengthening the bargaining power 
 of the workers, and accordingly the results vary not merely in degree 
 but in kind. The public wishes to see "fair play," and up to a certain 
 point the union is a device to get fair play. In truth, what is in the public's 
 thought, somewhat vaguely, is approval of unions so far as they go to 
 establish a real equality in competitive bargaining with the employers, 
 but disapproval where the power of the union gets greater and becomes 
 monopolistic. 
 
 It is at this point that organized labor loses the sympathy of most 
 of "the general public" outside of unions. When the union tries to force 
 a higher wage than the market will warrant, when it strives not to establish 
 but to defeat competition, the public condemns. It sees, though not 
 quite clearly, that such action makes an unstable equilibrium of wages 
 which tempts to constant friction and discord with employers and with 
 unorganized laborers. It sees also that if the unions force a wage higher 
 than a fair and open market affords, this is rarely done at the expense 
 of the employer; that in the long run it is at the expense of the purchasing 
 public itself, including the unprivileged workmen. 
 
 The Consequences of Labor Monopoly 
 
 (From "Latter Day Problems," by J. Laurence .Laughlin, 
 Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Chicago. Pub- 
 lished by Charles Scribner's Sons. The consequences of labor 
 monopoly as it is attempted are well portrayed by Professor 
 Laughlin.) 
 
 Whatever the reasons, the fact is to-day unmistakable that the unions 
 include only a small fraction of the total body of laborers. In spite of 
 the proclaimed intention to include in a union each worker of every occu- 
 pation, and then to federate all the unions, the unions contain far less 
 than a majority of the working force of the country. To the present time, 
 therefore, the practical policy of the unions has resisted in one of arti- 
 ficial monopoly; that is, not able to control the whole supply, the union 
 attempts to fix a "union scale" and maintain only its members at work. 
 
170 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 This situation, consequently means, always and inevitably the existence 
 of non-union men, against whom warfare must be waged. Under this 
 system high wages for some can be obtained only by the sacrifice of 
 others outside the union. The economic means chosen by the unions, 
 then, to gain higher wages are practicable only for a part of the labor 
 body, and then only provided all other competitors can be driven from 
 the field. The policy of artificial monopoly being, thus, the common 
 principle of a great majority of unions, we may next briefly consider the 
 inevitable consequences of such a policy. 
 
 1. The immediate corollary of the union policy is a warfare a 1'ou- 
 trance against non-union men. This hostility against brother workers 
 is excused on the ground that it is the only means of keeping up the 
 "union scale" of wages. Although an artificial monopoly is unjust and 
 selfish, and certain to end in failure, the unions have doggedly adhered 
 to it so far as to create a code of ethics which justifies any act which 
 will preserve the monopoly. This is the reason why a non-union man 
 seeking work is regarded as a traitor to his class, when in reality he is a 
 traitor to an insufficient economic principle. As a human being he has 
 the same right to live and work as any other, whether a member of a 
 union or not. The arrogance of unionism in ruling on the fundamentals 
 of human liberty, the assumption of infallibility and superiority to insti- 
 tutions which have been won only by centuries of political sacrifice and 
 effort, is something supernal something to be resented by every lover of 
 liberty. 'Unionism, if unjust to other men, cannot stand. 
 
 2. Since the "union scale" of an artificial monopoly is clearly not 
 the market rate of wages, the maintenance of the former can be perpe- 
 trated only by limiting the supply to the members of the union. The 
 only means of keeping non-union men from competition is force. Conse- 
 quently, the inevitable outcome of the present policy, of many labor 
 organizations is lawlessness and an array of power against the State. 
 Their policy being what it is, their purposes can be successfully carried 
 out only by force, and by denying to outsiders the privileges of equality 
 and liberty. Some time the means of enforcing their unenacted views is 
 known as "peaceful picketing"; but this is only a mask for threats of 
 violence. In fact, intimidation of all kinds up to actual murder has 
 been employed to drive non-union competitors out of the labor market. 
 Picketing, boycotts, breaking heads, slugging, murder all outrages against 
 the law and order, against a government of liberty and equality are the 
 necessary consequences of the existing beliefs of unionists, and they 
 cannot gain their ends without them. So long as the unions adhere to 
 their present principles so long will they be driven to defy the majesty 
 of the law, and work to subvert a proper respect for the orderly conduct 
 of government. 
 
 The dictum of a few men in a union has been set above the equality 
 of men before the law. The union lays down an ethical proposition, and 
 by its own agencies sets itself to apply it at any and all cost. This is a 
 method of tyranny and not of liberty. The right of the humblest person 
 to be protected in his life and property is the very corner stone of free 
 government. It means more for the weak than for the strong. There- 
 
MONOPOLY ASPECTS OF CLOSED SHOP UNIONISM 171 
 
 fore, the opinions of a loosely constituted body, representing a limited set 
 of interests, should not, and will not, be allowed to assume a power 
 greater than the political liberty for all, rich or poor, which has been a 
 thousand years in the making. By the abuses of unionism there has been 
 set up an impcrium in imperio one inconsistent with the other. One or 
 the other must give way. Which one it shall be no one can doubt. The 
 dictum of rioters will never be allowed by modern society to eradicate 
 the beneficent results which have, issued from the long evolution of civil 
 liberty. If the platform of the unions is opposed to the fundamentals of 
 law and progress, it must yield to the inevitable and be reconstructed on 
 correct principles of economics and justice. 
 
 Unions Resort to Politics 
 
 3. The labor leaders, finding themselves opposed by the strong forces 
 of society, have at times made use of politics. They have sought to influ- 
 ence executive action in their favor. Mayors of cities are under pressure 
 not to use the police to maintain order when strikers are intimidating 
 non-union men. More than that, since the presence of soldiers would se- 
 cure safety from force to non-union workers, union leaders have urged 
 governors, and even the President of the United States, to refrain from 
 sending troops to points where disorderly strikes are in operation. Not 
 only the police and the soldiery, but even the courts, when used solely 
 to enforce the law as created by the majority of voters, have been con- 
 spicuously attacked as the enemies of "organized labor." The hostility of 
 these agencies in truth is not toward labor, or its organization, but toward 
 the perverse and misguided policy adopted by the labor leaders. 
 
 The entry of unions into politics, in general, is a sign of sound growth. 
 It is, at least, a recognition that the only legitimate way of enforcing 
 their opinions upon others is by getting them incorporated into law by 
 constitutional means. And yet legislation in favor of special interests 
 will be met by the demand of equal treatment for all other interests con- 
 cerned; and in this arena the battle must be fought out. The unions will 
 not have their own way by any means. So far as concerns the rate of 
 wages, in any event, political agitation and legislation can do little. The 
 forces governing the demand and supply of labor are beyond the control 
 of legislation. But other subjects of labor legislation have been intro- 
 duced, as is well known, such as eight-hour laws, high wages for State 
 employes, and demands for employment by the Government of only union 
 men. All these efforts would be largely unnecessary were the action of 
 the unions founded on another principle than monopoly. 
 
 4. The difficulties arising from this incorrect policy of artificial 
 monopoly of the labor supply have been felt by the unions, but they have 
 not been assigned to their true cause. Believing in this theory, even though 
 incorrect, they have gone on enforcing their demands by methods unre- 
 lated to the real causes at work. They have tried to strengthen their 
 position by claiming a share in the ownership of the establishment in 
 which they work, or a right of property in the product they produce, or 
 a part in the business management of the concern which employs them. 
 They have tried to say who shall be hired, who dismissed, where mate- 
 
172 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 rials shall be bought, by whom goods shall be carried or sold, and the 
 like. Their purpose is not always clear; but it seems to be a part of a 
 plan to keep the employer at their mercy, and thus under the necessity 
 of submitting to any and all demands as regards wages. 
 
 In this matter the unions cannot succeed. The very essence of a 
 defined rate of wages is that the laborer contracts himself out of all risk. 
 If the workman claims to be a partner in the commercial enterprise, ask- 
 ing in addition a part of the gains, he must also be willing to share the 
 losses. This is obviously impossible for the ordinary working man. Hired 
 labor and narrow means go together. Capital can, labor cannot, wait 
 without serious loss. Laborers, therefore, can not take the risks of in- 
 dustry and assume the familiar losses of business. This is the full and 
 conclusive reason why the laborer contracts himself out of risk and 
 accepts a definite rate of wages. If he does this, he is estopped, both 
 morally and legally, from further proprietary claims on the product or 
 on the establishment. 
 
 By way of resume, it is to be seen that the attempt to increase the 
 income of labor on the unionist principle of a limitation of competitors 
 had led into an impasse, where further progress is blocked by the follow- 
 ing evils: 
 
 1. The wrong to non-union men. 
 
 2. The defiance of the established .order of society. 
 
 3. A futile resort to legislation. 
 
 4. The interference with the employers' management. 
 
 Restrictions on Membership Admission 
 (From "Admission to American Trade Unions" by Dr. F. E. 
 Wolfe, Colby College. Published by Johns Hopkins University in 
 1912. How the unions try to raise wages by limiting the number 
 of skilled workers through apprenticeship rules.) 
 
 The most effective device whereby the union may guard the regular 
 entrance to a trade is the limitation of the number, rather than the 
 requirement of certain qualifications, of persons who may become appren- 
 tices. Since the beginning of customary or statutory recognition of the 
 industrial need of an adequate supply of well-trained mechanics a limita- 
 tion of the number of apprentices has been attempted. The essential 
 purpose of numerical limitation has continued to be the insuring of a 
 supply of workmen according to the needs of each trade. But it may 
 easily serve also one immediate aim of trade unionism the maintenance 
 of wages by diminishing the competition of laborers within the trade. 
 Accordingly, all unions attempting apprentice regulation enforce more or 
 less successfully some form of numerical limitation of apprentices. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. F. S. Deibler, professor of Eco- 
 nomics at Northwestern University, before the Industrial Rela- 
 tions Commission, July 23, 1914. Page 3335 of the record. The 
 testimony of Mr. Judge, which follows, shows why high initia- 
 tion fees are charged.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : What have you to say with reference to the methods 
 used by the unions in time of peace and in time of war? 
 
MONOPOLY ASPECTS OF CLOSED SHOP UNIONISM 173 
 
 PROF. DEIBLER: Well, could I ask to have that a little more specific? 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : Well, I mean have you any views as to the method 
 used, such a restriction of membership in time of peace; high initiation 
 fee? 
 
 PROF. DEIBLER: I think the trade-union that undertakes to limit its 
 membership by high fee tends to establish a monopoly of labor and is 
 unwise from their point of view, and would be just as detrimental to the 
 community as monopoly on the side of the employer. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Patrick Judge, secretary-treasurer 
 of the Plasters' Helpers' Protective Association, before the Indus- 
 trial Relations Commission, May 28, 1914. Page 1763 of the 
 record. The union wished to confine work to its own group.) 
 
 MR. THOMPSON : At one time did you charge as much as $100 for 
 an initiation fee? 
 
 MR. JUDGE: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: When was that? 
 
 MR. JUDGE: In the prosperous years of 1905 and 1906. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: Why did you charge so much for initiation dues? 
 
 MR. JUDGE: Because so many applicants appeared to be admitted into 
 the organization that we considered it advisable to protect our members. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: And that was the reason? 
 
 MR. JUDGE: Yes. 
 
 Fining Employer to Force Monopoly 
 
 (How the unions attempt to create and maintain monopoly 
 of the labor market is revealed in the following from the New 
 Sky Line, Little Rock, of March 27, 1920. The unions attempted 
 to force employers to sell only to union members.) 
 
 As an example of the extremes to which the craft unions went when 
 the closed shop existed in Little Rock, the case of the Electric Construc- 
 tion Company is cited. The Electrical Union signed up an agreement 
 with the contractors July I, 1916, and in January the Electric Construc- 
 tion Company had to pay fifteen dollars for having sold material to a 
 non-union workman, to be used on what had been declared an unfair job. 
 
 When the job was declared unfair, the builder wanted the work 
 continued, and as the Electric Construction Company could not do it, the 
 manager, when asked as to who was obtainable, gave the builder the 
 name of a non-union workman, and later sold him material with which 
 to complete the building. The business agent and the committee of the 
 union investigated the matter, declared it was a violation of the agree- 
 ment, and required the Electric Construction Company to pay them for 
 their time in making the investigation; or, in other words, fined the firm 
 fifteen dollars for giving an employer the name of a non-union workman 
 and selling material to go on a job declared by the union to be unfair. 
 (The affidavit of Mr. Fred C. Bragg is then quoted by the "New Sky 
 Line.") 
 
 (Views of the New York Chapter of the American Institute 
 of Architects on New York building conditions, in a memorandum 
 
174 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 presented May 26, 1914, to the Industrial Relations Commission, 
 with additional comment by Mr. D. Everett Waid, who presented 
 the memorandum to the Commission. Pages 1658-1660 of the 
 
 Recently there has been a new attempt looking to the spread of 
 union control in the building industry, thus far not very successful. It 
 is an attempt on the part of the building trades unions to force the 
 employment of union workmen for any work that is done in a building 
 after the building is completed. While the unions have almost com- 
 pletely controlled the construction work of this city, it was assumed that 
 once a building was completed the owner could thereafter employ anyone 
 he pleased and do anything he pleased thereafter either with his own 
 employes or others. An attempt has been made, sometimes successfully, 
 within recent years to force such owners and their tenants after occupying 
 their buildings to employ union house carpenters, union machinists, union 
 fitters, etc. In some cases it is even attempted to prevent an owner from 
 employing union workmen even if he is willing to do so unless he 
 employs them through the association's contractor. The attempt has 
 been made to enforce this condition through a threatened strike on the 
 part of all union labor before the building is completed unless the owner 
 agrees before such completion to unionize his shop or factory after the 
 building is completed. Although this has not always been successful the 
 plan threatens to be very serious if nothing is done to stop it. 
 
 Steel and the Open Shop 
 
 In their attempts to divert attention from their restrictive 
 and destructive policies the closed shop leaders are endeavoring 
 to make the public believe that the big employers of the nation, 
 headed by the steel interests, are in a "conspiracy" to deprive all 
 union workers of their employment. They have also charged the 
 railways with attempting to "disrupt" labor organizations. 
 
 The closed shop advocates have made much of the testimony 
 of Mr. Grace and other steel men. It has been alleged that they 
 have combined to refuse to furnish steel to those using any union 
 labor in its erection. There is no claim that their purpose has 
 been to raise prices to the public. 
 
 Employers in the steel industry have not discriminated against 
 union labor; they have insisted that their products be erected 
 under open-shop conditions, where union labor may be employed 
 if it is willing, and where non-union or independent labor is not 
 discriminated against or refused employment. They refused in 
 New York to enter the unlawful combine between employers and 
 the Brindell group, the effect of which has been to raise prices and 
 deprive independent labor of work. The attempted compulsion 
 by both the Building Trades Employers' Association and the 
 
MONOPOLY ASPECTS OF CLOSED SHOP UNIONISM 175 
 
 Brindell group to force the structural iron industry into the 
 combination was successfully resisted. 
 
 The December 30, 1920 Bulletin of the National Founders' 
 Association states the matter squarely and concisely, quite 
 properly saying: 
 
 Much is made of the statement that the Bethlehem Company did not 
 want to sell fabricated steel unless it was put up under open shop con- 
 ditions. Nobody appears to remember the fact that the unions will not 
 permit their men to use steel made in open shops, that strikes would be 
 called where such steel was used by contractors, and that every effort 
 from dynamite to dissuasion would be used to prevent the erection of a 
 building in which an open shop product was a part. 
 
 After Mr. Grace, president of the Bethlehem Steel Company, 
 had testified on December 15, 1920, that it was the policy of his 
 company to sell structural steel only to those who would erect it 
 on an open shop basis, the following occurred : 
 
 QUESTION (Senator Kaplan) : Don't you believe that when you direct 
 him, in the purchase of your steel, that he must see to it that other than 
 union men, or at least in addition to union men shall erect it, you are 
 discriminating? 
 
 ANSWER: I think we are asking him not to discriminate; that is 
 my interpretation. He is discriminating because he rules out the non- 
 union man. 
 
 The conditions which created organizations of employers to 
 resist the closed shop in the steel industry are clearly pointed out 
 in a pamphlet written by Luke Grant and published by the United 
 States Industrial Relations Commission in 1915. Employers who 
 refused to deal with the Structural Iron Workers' Union, directly 
 or indirectly, were forced to do so by reason of the conditions 
 which prevailed in New* York City, as well as elsewhere, while 
 the Structural Iron Workers were able to enforce them. Dyna- 
 mite, and violence of all kinds were used to establish the closed 
 shop. Thirty-eight of the leaders of the uinon were sentenced 
 a few years ago to the penitentiary as a result. Did the members 
 disavow the actions of these leaders, who used union funds to 
 terrorize the building industry? The answer is that they have 
 since elected twenty-one of these convicted men to local and 
 international offices in the organization which is still affiliated with 
 the American Federation of Labor. Their action indicates no 
 change of sentiment. Employers who refuse to deal with unions 
 which practice and endorse such restrictive and destructive prac- 
 tices deserve the encouragement of industry and the public. 
 
176 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 The real evil of the closed shop and its great menace to busi- 
 ness and to the public are the weak-kneed employers who yield 
 to the closed shop demands and the employers who attempt 
 through the weapon of the closed shop to monopolize business 
 and raise prices without limit. 
 
 Refusing to Encourage Discrimination Against Non-Union 
 
 Men 
 
 The Buffalo Commercial of December 16, 1920, commented 
 editorially on the testimony of Mr. Grace before the Lockwood 
 Committee : 
 
 The Bethlehem Steel Company itself employs union labor. What 
 Mr. Grace did say was that his firm refused to sell steel to building firms 
 in New York and Philadelphia districts that employed union labor ex- 
 clusively, or in other words, his firm declined to sell to closed shop build- 
 ers in these districts. 
 
 Mr. Grace stated quite frankly the reason that impelled his firm to 
 decline to have business relations with firms that refused to hire men 
 unless they took out a card of membership in a labor union. It was in de- 
 fense of the open shop principle. That is quite sufficient. Every manu- 
 facturer in the country is justified in doing everything legitimate that 
 lies within his power to preserve a principle so fundamental and so vital 
 to the welfare of the nation as this one is. 
 
 It is just as unfair to condemn the Government of the United States 
 for refusing to sell goods to the Russian Soviet Republic as to condemn 
 the United States Steel Corporation and the Bethlehem Steel Company 
 for declining to sell fabricated steel to closed shop builders. The reasons 
 for refusing to enter into relations with the Bolsheviki are exactly the 
 same as exist in the steel business. The Russian reds nave been trying 
 to spread their propaganda throughout this country. They have been 
 instigating revolutionary movements wherever possible with the intention 
 of undermining and blowing up our democracy. 
 
 A year ago last September union labor under the leadership of 
 Foster, the Syndicalist, and Fitzpatrick, the Chicago radical, aided and 
 abetted by the American Federation of Labor, sought to get control of 
 the steel industry in America with the view of ultimately extending their 
 power over every industry that uses some form of fabricated steel in its 
 business. The strike that was then organized failed through the active 
 and intelligent opposition of the very men who are today refusing to give 
 organized labor a chance to engineer another strike for power. 
 
 When one American city can have tied up on account of labor rows 
 about $100,000,000 worth of building construction during the first seven 
 months of the year it would seem to be about time that those who supply 
 dealers with building material got down to some plan to put an end to 
 such enormous economic waste. And if that plan embraces the refusal 
 to sell supplies to such builders the sooner will it spell the end of a 
 labor condition that is ruinous factors entering into the business. 
 
MONOPOLY ASPECTS OF CLOSED SHOP UNIONISM 177 
 
 But certainly the New York contractors who entered into those 
 infamous contracts with Brindell and other labor leaders to gouge the city, 
 builders and workers alike should be the last persons in the world to 
 protest against the refusal of the steel companies to be parties to their 
 crooked deals. 
 
 The following analytical review of the testimony of Mr. 
 Grace by the Independent, January i, 1921, gives a far different 
 idea of that testimony than one would gather from the usual 
 press headlines: 
 
 One of the most interesting chapters in American industrial history 
 was the cross examination of Eugene G. Grace, president of the Bethle- 
 hem Steel Corporation, by Samuel Untermyer, counsel for the Lockwood 
 Committee, investigating the building scandals in New York. Mr. Grace 
 defined the open shop as a place where any man can work, "where there 
 is no discrimination against employment of any man to do any kind of 
 work which he might have to do." He denied that it was equivalent to 
 discrimination against union labor. He said that members of trades 
 unions were welcome in the steel plants, but that they would not be 
 recognized or dealt with as such ; ..they could keep their union member- 
 ship if they liked, but they would be considered simply as individual 
 employes. 
 
 Mr. Luke Grant, in the official report referred to, analyzed 
 in 1915 the histories and methods of the National Erectors' 
 Association and the Structural Iron Workers. The National 
 Erectors' Association has been accused of discriminating against 
 union workers, particularly in New York City. 
 
 Mr. Grant states that after the National Erectors' Association 
 adopted its open shop policy in 1906, 
 
 "Its members did not deviate from that policy to the extent of hold- 
 ing any formal conferences with union representatives, or entering into 
 any agreements with them. But they had no objections to employing 
 union men if they could find any willing to work for them. Neither 
 did they hesitate to sublet contracts to firms employing union men, if that 
 plan appeared to offer any advantage." (page 72.) 
 
 A large percentage of the iron workers on "open shop" job? 
 
 in New York City are union men. Statements such as many 
 
 periodicals make to the effect that steel interests wish to bring 
 
 about conditions where union men cannot get work are not true. 
 
 The Railroad Boomerang 
 
 Friday, January 7, 1921, the International Association of 
 Machinists filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission a 
 petition requesting "that an immediate inquiry be instituted into 
 the present practices of a large number of railways in entering 
 into contracts to have their locomotive and car repair work per- 
 formed in outside establishments." This practice, it was alleged, 
 
178 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 "has recently become so extensive as to affect seriously the gen- 
 eral public interest." 
 
 It was charged (i) That locomotive repairing by private 
 equipment companies is "on an average" four times as expensive 
 as in the railways' own shops and (2) That freight car repair 
 work costs are increased $250,000,000 yearly. $750,000,000 is 
 the minimum of which it is alleged the railways are being 
 "milked." "As the public pays the bill ultimately for the trans- 
 portation industry, this means that the public is being required to 
 pay indefensible overcharges." 
 
 The reasons for the adoption of this policy are several, it is 
 claimed: (i) To make profitable "the operations of certain pri- 
 vate equipment companies in which the railroads are frequently 
 interested." (2) The aim is "to disrupt railroad labor organi- 
 zations which have developed during the war." This is said to 
 be a phase of the nationwide op^i shop movement. 
 
 The Interstate Commerce Commission is asked to compel, 
 except where necessity prevents it, the railways to have their loco- 
 motive and car repair work done in their own shops, since "the 
 law contemplates that revenues derived from transportation ser- 
 vices must be economically, efficiently and honestly accounted for 
 or expended." 
 
 This attack is the forerunner of a gigantic publicity campaign 
 in defense of the closed shop which will be undertaken by the 
 American Federation of Labor. 
 
 Many attacks and charges will be made which will obtain, 
 because of their seriousness, wide publicity. Probably no attempt 
 will be made to substantiate in any conclusive way most of these ; 
 they will endeavor by inference and innunendo to cast discredit on 
 all the leading) advocates of the open shop. The closed shoppers 
 are on the defensive ; they cannot successfully deny the industrial 
 inefficiency and discord for which they are responsible. They 
 realize that the public is steadily turning towards the open door 
 in industry; they hope to offset this by making the public forget 
 the great issues involved. "Why beholdes*t thou the mote that is 
 in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that in is thine 
 own eye?" 
 
 The petition declared that the Lockwood Committee investi- 
 gations revealed that "the Bethlehem Steel Company refused to 
 furnish fabricated steel to construction companies in New York 
 
MONOPOLY ASPECTS OF CLOSED SHOP UNIONISM 179 
 
 City who employed members of labor unions." Are all their 
 "facts" like this one? The testimony revealed no such thing; the 
 steel interests would sell to those employing "members of labor 
 unions ;" they would not sell to firms which employed only union 
 labor and refused to employ any independent workers. 
 
 Union Charges Inaccurate 
 
 But what are the real facts regarding this railway charge? 
 The closed shoppers desire to establish the closed shop in all the 
 branches of railway transportation, thus giving enormous power 
 over the economic life of the nation to a comparatively small 
 group. Have the railways, as the Wall Street Journal asks, 
 "gambled away hundreds of millions of corporate funds upon a 
 chance of 'breaking' the labor unions" ? 
 
 What do the railways themselves say ? 
 
 Thomas DeWitt Cuyler, Chairman of the Association of 
 Railway Executives, is quoted as follows in the New York Herald 
 of January 12, 1921 : 
 
 When the railroads were returned to private operation there was 
 an abnormal percentage of cars and locomotives in bad order, requiring 
 repairs. The excess of bad order equipment was beyond the capacity of 
 the railway shops and the railway labor engaged in the repair of cars 
 had declined in efficiency and output. These abnormal conditions re- 
 quired abnormal remedies to meet them. 
 
 Mr. Cuyler is also quoted in the New York Times of January 
 24, 1921, as saying that "the effect of the rules and working con- 
 ditions still controlling the repair of equipment in railway labor 
 shops has been disastrous to efficiency and output." 
 
 The President of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Rail- 
 road is quoted as saying that one reason for sending work to out- 
 side shops was the "limitations as to employing machinists pro- 
 vided by schedules with labor organizations." 
 
 President Kurn, of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway, is 
 quoted in the Wall Street Journal, of January 21, 1921, as saying 
 that the outside repair of equipment was imperative and that the 
 cost was less than home work : 
 
 The work done in the contract shops has cost and is costing less than 
 similar work in our own shops which in itself is a complete justification 
 for doing the work in outside shops leaving out of consideration entirely 
 the country's need to have the repairs of this class of equipment speeded 
 up to the limit. 
 
i8o OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Commenting on the charges of the Machinists, the New York 
 Times of January n, 1921, said editorially: 
 
 Chairman Clark of the Interstate Commerce Commission has testified 
 that the points raised have been under investigation, and that the excess 
 costs have been found to be due to the fact that the repairs in the railway 
 shops were stated without the items of interest, overhead and depreciation 
 charges. These costs are not avoided by not being entered in the ac- 
 counts, and private companies must include them to maintain their credit. 
 
 We see that the claims of the machinists have been promptly 
 refuted. Their sincerity may well be doubted ; the desire to per- 
 petuate the national agreements and insure the closed shop makes 
 them not over-cautious as to the truth of their allegations. 
 
 But the attempt to hide by a smokescreen, the real object, has 
 failed. In the word's of the Wall Street Journal: "It now appears 
 likely that by concentrating public attention upon the matter, the 
 machinists will have powerfully assisted the carriers to get rid of 
 the oppressive and indefensible 'shop crafts agreement,' which has 
 been perhaps the chief obstacle to restoration of adequate trans- 
 portation service and railroad credit." 
 
COMPETITION AND THE CLOSED SHOP 181 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Competition and the Closed Shop 
 How the Closed Shop Raises Prices 
 
 There is yet another way in which the closed shop affects the 
 public; it either raises prices directly or prevents them from 
 going as low as they otherwise would. This is the inevitable result 
 of all restrictions placed upon output, for it is a fundamental law 
 of economics that as the cost of production rises the price paid 
 by the consumer must rise, and that a smaller supply of a com- 
 modity means a higher price. 
 
 Here too, the closed shopper may believe that he has a con- 
 clusive answer, in pointing out the various combines of building 
 trades employers disclosed by the- Lockwood Committee in New 
 York City, which are alleged by monopolistic methods to have 
 exorbitantly raised prices. The "wicked employer" is responsible 
 for price increases, and not the closed shop union, he will say. 
 
 Closed Shop Used by Some Employers to Fleece Public 
 
 It is only necessary in this connection to recall the real facts. 
 These combines of employers were able to either force other 
 employers into their organization, make them pay tribute, or drive 
 them out of business. How was this done? Quotations from the 
 daily papers of the testimony given will answer : 
 
 Says the New York Times, of November 25, 1920: "Sidney 
 H. Sonn, a builder, testified that two plumbing contractors had to 
 give up work on a contract 'because of pressure/ brought by the 
 Master Plumbers' Association through walking delegates of the 
 Building Trades Council" (the Brindell organization. Italics 
 ours.) Further: "The Master Plumbers 5 Association, acting in 
 concert with the council, called strikes on the work because it was 
 not being done by one of the inner group of plumbing contractors, 
 associated with Hettrick. * * * A job that was to cost him 
 $37,500 actually cost $107,779 before he was finished, because of 
 these difficulties." 
 
 In the Times of December 3, we find this : "Anthony Bres- 
 cia, a mason contractor of 681 Ellerton Avenue, the Bronx * * 
 described how he was forced out of business after he had refused 
 to tolerate the exorbitant increases of prices made by the Stone 
 
182 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Masons Contractors' Association. He was compelled to join after 
 threats had been made to ruin him. * * * The contractors 
 who failed to join the organization were expelled, and Louis Maz- 
 zola, walking delegate of the Stone Masons Union Local No. 74, 
 called the employes out on strike." 
 
 According to the Times of December 4, "it was also revealed 
 that delegates of the Hoisting Engineers' Union appeared before 
 the contractors (Contractors' Protective Association) with a plan 
 to call off their men on all firms not affiliated with the organi- 
 sation" 
 
 Driving Employers Out of Business 
 On December n, 1920, the Times said: "A sensational story 
 of how two associations of marble contractors, working in con- 
 junction with labor unions, kept the entire marble industry of the 
 country in a tight grip was spread upon the records of the Lock- 
 wood Committee yesterday : * * * The two employers' asso- 
 ciations had agreements with local and international unions in the 
 machine trade. * * * The agreements between the unions 
 and employers bound the employers to take none but union men, 
 and the unions bound themselves to work for none but members 
 of the employers' associations. * * * The unions acted as an 
 enforcement agency for the employers, driving out of business 
 those contractors who were not permitted to become members of 
 the employers' associations." 
 
 Says the Times Review of the situation two days later : ."In 
 some cases, as brought out before the Lockwood Committee, the 
 agreement was used as a club to force employers outside the asso- 
 ciation to join it under pain of having their workingmen with- 
 drawn by the union." 
 
 And we find this in the Times of December 31 : 
 "It was brought out that by means of exclusive agreements 
 made between constituent members of the association (Building 
 Trades Employers), and the unions in BrindelFs council, no 
 employer could hope to do business unless he became a member of 
 the employers' association. * * * Eidlitz was asked whether 
 such exclusive agreements as to the employment of only union 
 men who agreed to work for none but members of the association 
 were illegal: He did not know they were illegal, but said they 
 were 'against public policy.' " Shall we condemn employers who, 
 singly or collectively, refuse to join such alliances 'against public 
 
COMPETITION AND THE CLOSED SHOP i83 
 
 policy ?' Or shall we admire their independence and nerve in their 
 refusal to submit to the terrorism possible only because of the 
 closed shop? 
 
 The reason some of the builders and general contractors of 
 New York City endorse the closed shop, and that many Buffalo 
 general contractors and labor leaders do not wish (Buffalo Com- 
 mercial, December 27, 1920) , an investigation there, may be made 
 clear by the following quotation (page 174) from Dr. Frank 
 Stockton's book, "The Closed Shop In American Trade Unions," 
 published by Johns Hopkins University : 
 
 Neither employers nor unions have had much to say concerning 
 the advantage of "exclusive agreements." This is explained by the fact 
 that such agreements are generally condemned as being in restraint of trade 
 and therefore against public policy. Employers who are parties to them 
 obtain a great advantage over competitors in localities where the unions 
 are strong, since they secure a virtual monopoly of the labor supply. 
 * * * But while the closed shop under such conditions may be an advan- 
 tage to those employers with whom a union agrees to deal exclusively, 
 the public interest suffers inasmuch as competition is effectively stifled. 
 
 In other words, the closed shop, by which employers agree to 
 employ only union men, is used to raise prices to the general 
 public. The closed shop, by which workers can be refused to 
 employers (even where they are willing to hire union men), is a 
 powerful weapon. The union's ability to prevent any outsider 
 from getting labor in a ps r ticular market is a misuse of the closer, 
 shop power of the union against the rights of the general public. 
 If it were not for the closed shop and this power to prevent out- 
 siders from getting labor the employers combinations disclosed 
 by the Lockwood investigation would never have been able to 
 force a practical monopoly in their various trades. The logical 
 development of the closed shop idea is the bargain between unions 
 and employers to exclude workers from jobs and employers from 
 business. 
 
 (From testimony before the Industrial Relations Commis- 
 sion, April 8, 1914, of Mr. W. J. Spencer, representing the build- 
 ing trades department of the American Federation of Labor. 
 Page 663 of the record.) 
 
 COMMISSIONER BALLAKD: One other question about the plumbers. It 
 has been suggested that perhaps union men only would work for plumbers 
 who employed union men exclusively, and those plumbing establishments 
 would be the only ones that could be allowed to buy plumbing materials 
 from certain of these large manufacturing establishments. Is there 
 an arrangement of that character? 
 
184 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 MR. SPENCER: When I was organizer of the plumbing association 
 the national association I found that to be quite general that is, I found 
 it quite frequently, not generally. I found it where a number of unions 
 would organize, that those unions would organize with the employers' 
 associations, and they would agree that they would not hire non-union 
 men on the one hand, or they would not work for a non-union employer 
 on the other hand. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Walter Gordon Merritt, then counsel 
 for the American Anti-Boycott Association, at present counsel 
 for the League for Industrial Rights, before the Industrial Rela- 
 tions Commission, May 25, 1914.) 
 
 Then the manufacturers the woodworkers' association who also 
 employ members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, and also 
 members of the Building Trades Employers' Association, entered into 
 an agreement with the carpenters, that they would run union shops sub- 
 ject to union scale, provided the union men would not put up the non- 
 union material, and they could thereby be protected from open shop 
 competition. That is the condition we were confronted with in Man- 
 hattan and the Bronx at the time our litigation commenced. The manu- 
 facturers, the woodworkers' association, employed spies to go around 
 and secure information as to where non-union men were being used, 
 and furnished that information to the union, who would strike the job 
 if it were the material of any of the open shops. 
 
 There are, therefore, two suits pending in Brooklyn at the present time 
 now awaiting decision before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. 
 One is the suit brought by Albro J. Newton and the other by Louis 
 Bossert against the carpenters' union. The Bossert Co. formerly did 
 a business of half a million dollars across the river here; but to-day the 
 open shops in Brooklyn who manufacture this trim do not know what 
 interborough trade is. They can not sell it across the river, although 
 they! can produce it at prices 25 to 50 per cent under the union shops. 
 
 Now, this condition in the building trades, which, of course, is for 
 the mutual benefit of the employers and employes, is satisfactory to a 
 large extent to those parties mutually engaged in the business, is being 
 utilized in a great many ways to the detriment of the outsider who is 
 not a party to it. One of the favorite schemes is for the employers to 
 instigate strikes against a competing employer who does not conform 
 to their standards as to the way in which the business should be con- 
 ducted. I am not now referring to the wage scale, or the question of the 
 union or the open shop, but I am referring to things which the employer 
 thinks are detrimental to his business and wants eradicated. And he 
 finds this union an instrument, by which they have a complete grip 
 on the trades of New York, useful to him in eliminating what he thinks 
 is competition that he does not want to meet. 
 
 MR. THOMPSON: In other words, it is the workingman that is 
 used as the battering ram? 
 
 MR. MlERRriT: In a great many of these cases that is true. In the 
 wood-trim cases it is the master carpenters that are being used as a 
 
COMPETITION AND THE CLOSED SHOP 185 
 
 battering ram. But all these agreements are give and take. One gives 
 one thing and one gives another, and it makes it desirable for them 
 to come together for mutual protection in that way, regardless of what 
 happens to the public or the outsider. 
 
 Early History of "Exclusive Agreements" 
 
 (From "History of Labor in the United States" by Com- 
 mons and Associates. Pages 32 and 33. Written by John B. 
 Andrews, of the American Association for Labor Legislation.) 
 
 The relatively high state of organization, among both workmen and 
 employers, demonstrated to each element the advantages of united action. 
 And it naturally suggested the next step. If individual workmen, by sub- 
 merging their little differences in union agreements, secured exclusive 
 privileges in bargaining; and if individual employers by uniting in turn 
 relieved competition among themselves, what could be more natural 
 than a desire to unite the two organized elements for the purpose of 
 securing still greater benefits? The associated employers might agree 
 to hire none but union men, providing the union men would agree to 
 work exclusively for the associated employers. 
 
 This would tend to force outsiders of both elements into the organ- 
 izations with a practical monopoly of the trade, the employers could 
 raise wages and at the same time increase profits by exacting higher 
 prices from the public. And this form of understanding, now notable 
 in the building trades of several cities under the name, "exclusive agree- 
 ment," was attempted as early as 1865. One of our earliest examples, 
 too, is among the building trades. This interesting over-development of 
 the trade agreement beyond its legitimate scope of protecting labor and 
 equalizing the competitive labor conditions of employers, occurred among 
 the bricklayers of Baltimore. The journeymen bricklayers of this city 
 had been organized nearly a year, when, in spring of 1865, their employers 
 had the first serious trouble in arranging satisfactory terms. About the 
 first of February the employers received official information of an intended 
 demand for an increase in wages. This increase was to take effect April 
 i. They were invited by the journeymen to attend a special meeting or 
 conference for the purpose of arranging matters to the satisfaction of 
 both parties. At this meeting the Master Bricklayers' Association agreed 
 to continue their policy of employing strictly union men. After the jour- 
 neymen had withdrawn from the conference the employers revised their 
 old scale of prices, and at a later meeting took measures to secure its 
 general enforcement upon the building public. This plan was reflected 
 in a' resolution requesting the journeymen not to work for any employer 
 that failed to join the employers' association. But the journeymen refused 
 to do this on the ground that such an agreement would force all small 
 contractors to abide by the advanced list. They felt that the blame for 
 an exorbitant book of prices would be thrown upon the journeymen's 
 union by the Baltimore public. In order to punish them for this refusal 
 the employers reduced the wages fifty cents per day, whereupon the 
 journeymen struck. The disclosure of the employers' association plan for 
 an "exclusive agreement" came to light during the strike. 
 
i86 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Increasing Living Costs 
 
 Mr. William Green, vice-president of the American Feder- 
 ation of Labor, and secretary-treasurer of the United Mine Work- 
 ers of America, in a letter of December 10 to the National Labor 
 Digest- published in the December, 1920, issue, says : 
 
 In accordance with unchangeable economic law, labor costs become 
 a fixed charge upon industry. It naturally follows that the labor costs of 
 manufactured articles are passed on to the consumer. The public at 
 large, therefore, pays the labor cost of everything manufactured. 
 
 The closed shop, which the American Federation of Labor 
 is back of, increases these "labor costs" which are "passed on to 
 the consumer." The public pays the closed shop bill. 
 
 Costs are increased .by (a) union laws which restrict the 
 amount of work a man may do in a day ; (b) rules which limit the 
 number of apprentices, thus reducing the number of skilled. work- 
 ers available, which means that unskilled workers must be used 
 to a larger extent, thereby increasing the cost of production; (c) 
 jurisdictional and sympathetic disputes and strikes, which cause 
 delays and interruptions, increasing the manufacturing costs; (d) 
 where the closed shop unions are strong we find agreements with 
 small groups of employers by which other employers are to be 
 refused workers, thus stifling competition and permitting prices to 
 be raised. 
 
 The public should bear in mind this statement of one of the 
 vice-presidents of the American Federation of Labor that, "the 
 labor costs of manufactured articles are passed on to the con- 
 sumer." 
 
 Mr. Edward A. Keeler, of Albany, secretary of the New 
 York State Association of Builders, is quoted in the Rochester 
 Democrat-Chronicle, of February 2, 1921, as saying: 
 
 So long as organized labor in the building trades * * * maintains 
 its present rules in limitations of production, I do not see how the cost of 
 production, I do not see how the cost of building houses, or any form 
 of construction in fact, can become lower. 
 
 Thus are rents increased and kept high. 
 
 (Testimony of Mr. James Duncan, president of the Granite 
 Cutters' International Association of America and first vice-presi- 
 dent of the American Federation of Labor, before the Industrial 
 Relations Commission, April 16, 1914. The product has been 
 cheapened by machinery, the introduction of which was formerly 
 
COMPETITION AND THE CLOSED SHOP 187 
 
 opposed by the unions. They now oppose the introduction of 
 scientific production methods.) 
 
 THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Has the laborer gotten any of the advan- 
 tage from the introduction of machinery? 
 
 MR. DUNCAN: Well, individually, perhaps not; only this, if it might 
 be so-called, more constant employment. It has helped cheapen the 
 finished product, and the finished product has been produced more per- 
 fectly, which has given them additional employment. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Frank C. Caldwell, president of a 
 large engineering company in Chicago, before the Industrial Rela- 
 tions Commission, July 25, 1914. Page 3438 of the record. 
 Would be easier for employers to adopt the closed shop and 
 increase prices to the public.) 
 
 Now, I say that the opposition and the antagonism on the part of 
 the employer is, I think, directed not at the union as such, but at the evils 
 and errors that are in such organizations as we know them. 
 
 And I want to say this also on behalf of the employer: I think 
 that his attitude in seeking to maintain what he considers right economic 
 conditions is by no means a selfish opposition. I wish to make the point 
 that if the employer were simply seeking to follow his own selfish ends, 
 to endeavor to earn the greatest amount of money with the least possible 
 friction and the least possible annoyance on his part, he might very 
 well acquiesce in everything that a union should demand of him and 
 pass on the cost to the consuming public. 
 
i88 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 Community Benefits of the Open Shop 
 Community Benefits Summarized 
 
 (1) The merchants, tradesmen and professional men benefit 
 by the increased total wages under the open shop caused by (a) 
 greater continuity of operations with less unemployment; and (b) 
 more skilled workers. 
 
 (2) Lower prices are made possible by decreased manu- 
 facturing costs. Increased industrial output and wages based on 
 ability make a higher standard of living. 
 
 (3) Competition is increased, which also tends to decrease 
 prices. Agreements by closed shop leaders to supply workers 
 only to members of certain employers' associations, thus prevent- 
 ing other employers from getting business, are impossible. Such 
 agreements make it possible for the members of these employers 
 associations to drive other employers from the field and increase 
 their prices. * 
 
 (4) Facts and figures prove that open shop communities 
 prosper and grow. San Francisco is a "union" town, and Detroit 
 is an "open shop" town. In ten years Detroit's wage earners 
 increased from 39,373 to 81,011; in ten years San Francisco's 
 wage earners decreased from 32,555 to 28,244. 
 
 Taking the twenty principal cities of the United States open 
 shop Indianapolis has the lowest "gross debt" and the second low- 
 est tax rate per $1000. Open shop Los Angeles has the lowest 
 tax rate per $1000* assessed valuation of property. Closed shop 
 San Francisco was tenth. * 
 
 The three towns with the largest population percentage 
 increases from 1910 to 1920 Akron, Detroit, and Los Angeles 
 are all strong "open shop" towns. 
 
 (5) Communities prosper as industries come. The Employ- 
 ers Association of Indianapolis reports that in 1920 thirty-one new 
 industries, largely due to open shop conditions, located there. 
 Many industries have left San Francisco because of the restrictive 
 union domination. The Buffalo Chamber of Commerce reports 
 that open shop conditions are now bringing many new industries, 
 which will employ over 20,000 workers. 
 
 (6) The lessening of friction between employers and walk- 
 ing delegates, and the decrease of sympathetic strikes and juris- 
 
COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF THE OPEN SHOP 189 
 
 dictional disputes, mean less injury and suffering for the innocent 
 bystanders, the public. 
 
 Peace and Efficiency Result 
 
 The closed shop means interference with production. Strikes 
 are far more apt to occur, and do occur more often, in closed shop 
 establishments than in open shop plants. As pointed out in a prev- 
 ious chapter, many of the "walking delegates" find it advantageous 
 either to foment, or at least not to discourage, strife. 
 
 Such a condition is conducive neither to efficiency or 
 harmony in industry, two attributes with which the public is 
 vitally concerned. 
 
 Both the employers and the employes should work to bring 
 these about, and are responsible to the public for their failure to 
 do so. 
 
 Harmony Follows Open Shop 
 
 Christy Thomas, writing in the Reviezv of Reviews for 
 November, 1920, had this to say about the open shop policy in 
 Seattle : 
 
 A practical result of the new condition in Seattle is that thousands of 
 union men and non-union men have buried their differences and are work- 
 ing side by side in peace in the city's manufacturing plants. I am con- 
 vinced from recent talks by both employers and the workers there 
 that the labor situation as a whole is constantly improving. In a number 
 of large industries where only union men are employed no hint of trouble 
 between the men and their employers is being found. Labor, in these 
 cases, is showing not only a dtesire to keep at work, but is cooperating 
 toward the common goal increased production. It is because of this 
 that capital has become more lenient toward labor, which is now rapidly 
 regaining much of its old-time efficiency. 
 
 The Associated Industries of Tacoma has been in existence 
 for year. Its bulletin of October, 1920, declares that between 
 January I and November i, 1919, Tacoma's industries suffered 
 from twelve strikes, resulting in wage losses of $3,470,000 and 
 losses to employers estimated at $361,000. Since the formation 
 of the Associated Industries, which supports the open shop, there 
 have been four strikes. "The year which has passed since the 
 formation of the Association has been one of almost complete 
 industrial harmony compared with the preceding twelve months." 
 
 Farmers Favor* Open Shop 
 
 Except in a few sections of the country where the I. W. W. 
 is especially pernicious the faVmers are not t directly concerned 
 with the closed shop. But the strikes of the past few years, and 
 
OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 the revelations of the immense hold over industrial life, in our 
 cities, that rapacious and corrupt labor leaders possess has niade 
 all true American citizens aware of the menace involved to 
 American ideals and institutions. 
 
 The National Grange, at its Fifty-fourth Annual Convention 
 in Boston, November 18, 1920, adopted the following open shop 
 resolution : 
 
 We disapprove of any system which denies to any individual the 
 right to work in any place where there is need of his industry at any 
 time and at any wage which is satisfactory to him, or to quit his employ- 
 ment wherever and for whatever reason may be to him controlling, sub- 
 ject only to such contract obligations as he may willingly enter into 
 and as may be imposed in an American court of justice. 
 
 Let Americans Consider 
 
 The unemployment problem is a serious one to-day in Eng- 
 land. The Builders' Union has refused to cooperate with non- 
 unionists in the construction of buildings. The Government pro- 
 posed that the building trade unions should absorb 50,000 unem- 
 ployed ex-service men. The unions refused, and, according to 
 the New York Times, of December 21, 1920, the Government 
 consented to pay the unions a grant for every ex-service man 
 accepted. The unions refused. Think of it! Closed shop unions 
 so strong that the Government offers to pay them for taking ex- 
 service into' their ranks. Do we want this in America? 
 
 The Christian Science Monitor of January 20, 1921, carried 
 a dispatch from Cape Town, Cape Colony, which is interesting. 
 The Minister of Labor urged employers to reduce the number of 
 unemployed as far as they are able, and then, the report says : 
 
 The Minister directed a special appeal to trade unions earnestly to 
 consider whether some slight relaxation of the rules or customs could be 
 adopted whereby some of those men might be employed on rough or 
 less skilled work pertaining to their particular trade. He said he did 
 not propose to suggest what class of work those men should specifically 
 perform, but would be pleased to have suggestions from the imions if 
 they were prepared to consider some relaxation. That there is a short- 
 age of skilled labor in certain trades is well known, and not only would 
 this scheme provide for unskilled workers, but in some instances would 
 improve the position of other skilled tradesmen. 
 
 The Minister of Labor was then quoted directly as saying: 
 For example, if more boiler workers were available, or if the boiler 
 makers would agree to rougher work being done by unskilled or semi- 
 skilled men, an immediate demand would be created for fitters and other 
 
COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF THE OPEN SHOP 191 
 
 tradesmen who are not so fully employed. If carpenters and bricklayers 
 could suggest some relaxation, then many painters and masons would 
 be provided for. 
 
 Let America take a lesson from such examples. The nation- 
 wide success of the closed shop would bring about just such 
 conditions in the United States. It would be a disgrace to the 
 memories of the men who have given their lives for American 
 freedom to see an American public official begging the leaders of 
 a labor organization to let unemployed workers earn their living. 
 
 The Iron Trade Review of December 23, 1920, quotes the 
 following from a letter of September i, 1920, from the Secretary 
 of War to the Chief of Ordnance. 
 
 No government arsenal can be a closed union shop. The government 
 of the United States is the creature and representative of all the people 
 in the United States. Its public institutions are for the use of the 
 whole people; its operatives and employes must be freely drawn from 
 those who are qualified by skill and character without reference to their 
 membership in unofficial trade organizations, membership in which is 
 voluntary, so far as the government is concerned, and should not be made 
 compulsory either by law or by exclusion from opportunity, which would 
 have the effect of law. 
 
 Would that other government departments adopted the same 
 attitude! The printing trades unions have enforced the closed 
 shop in the United States Government Printing Office. During 
 the war the railway brotherhoods received official recognition 
 from the Federal Government. In several states the union label 
 is required on all state printing. 
 
 At least one state legislature does not always bend the knee. 
 The Minnesota State Senate on January 14, 1921, voted 46 to 16 
 against requiring the union label on state printing. 
 
 (From an address of James A. Emery, general counsel of the 
 National Association of Manufacturers, before the Chicago 
 Association of Commerce, February 2, 1921. Open shop plants 
 were capable of providing war supplies.) 
 
 The greatest demonstration of the value of the principle I assert 
 can be found in the comparison with the conditions under which another 
 nation entered the war, because nothing so surely overtakes antebellum 
 theories as postbellum facts. Wihen we entered this great struggle, the 
 naval consulting board of the United States had made a survey which was 
 placed at the disposition of the Council of National Defense for the 
 purpose of ascertaining the capacity of the United States for munition 
 production. 
 
 The report back on its first survey, made substantially four months 
 
IQ2 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 before we entered the war, was that of the 18,654 industrial establish- 
 ments capable of munition production, substantially ten per cent operated 
 under union conditions and in the great fundamental industries upon 
 which the construction of ships, of great guns and of the more funda- 
 mental requirements of military defense rested, that less than four per 
 cent operated under union conditions. 
 
 Won't Drive Away Business 
 
 Dudley Taylor, president of the Employers' Association of 
 Chicago, said on December ipth, 1920: 
 
 Next to New York, this city is the worst dominated of any in the 
 country. Many manufacturers refuse to operate plants here because oj: 
 labor conditions. One of our large manufacturers recently moved to 
 another city because of the intolerable conditions here. 
 
 One local manufacturer has plans all drawn for an addition to cost 
 $1,000,000, as soon as he is assured that he may operate his business as 
 he sees fit ' ;| >:, [gj^j 
 
 To cite one case: Recently a corporation, using union teamsters 
 exclusively, received some machinery. One of their union teamsters hauled 
 it from the freight station. 
 
 It so happened that there is a special union for the hauling of this 
 particular kind of machinery. Because one of the members of this union 
 did not convey the goods, the corporation was fined $1,500, and paid it 
 after threats were made. 
 
 The Gains of a Year 
 
 The recently issued annual report of the Dallas Chamber of 
 Commerce describes as follows the progress of Dallas since the 
 inauguration of the open shop policies in the industries of the 
 city: 
 
 In its efforts to promote the industrial growth and welfare of Dallas, 
 a year of practical operation shows conclusively that one of the most 
 important accomplishments of the Chamber of Commerce was in the 
 organization of the Dallas Open Shop (Square Deal) Association in 
 November, 1919, and later in placing this body on a firm and permanent 
 working basis with the full backing and support of the Chamber. 
 
 Developments here and throughout the nation prove that the greatest 
 inducement any city can offer for the location of new industries is stable 
 open shop working conditions. When the membership of the Chamber 
 voted to form an open shop organization, Dallas had for a long time 
 been under the domination of radical labor unionism; practically all 
 building operations were conducted on the closed shop basis and had been 
 at a standstill on account of sympathetic strikes for some three months. 
 Employers of labor were absolutely subject to the rules and regulations 
 of the labor unions and were compelled to yield every point to the whims 
 and arrogance of the "walking delegate." 
 
 To-day the Dallas Open Shop Association has a sustaining membership 
 
COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF THE OPEN SHOP 193 
 
 of nearly 700, including most of our leading financial, industrial and com- 
 mercial establishments, and an annual budget of over $25,000. Dallas 
 building permits during the first nine months of 1920 showed an increase 
 of 40 per cent over a corresponding period last year as compared with a 
 sharp decrease in practically all other important cities of the nation. 
 
 Our official records show that the great majority of all building 
 permits taken out during the past year are for construction on the open 
 shop basis. Our Free Employment Bureau has placed 4,748 people in 
 paying positions from January 20, 1920, to December 7, 1920. As many 
 of these men moved here from other cities with their families, this means 
 an addition of several thousand to our population. 
 
 There . has been no strike in the building industry here since the 
 inauguration of the open shop, a condition unheard of before the organiza- 
 tion of this body. During 1919 there was 3,232 strikes of record in the 
 United States, affecting 3,950,000 workers. With an average of thirty- 
 four days to a strike this meant a loss of 134,300,000 working days, 
 with a wage loss of more than $800,000,000, to say nothing of the loss 
 to industry and inconvenience to the people of the nation as a whole. 
 These strikes made possible the very thing vhich workers are crying out 
 against, profiteering. Strikes will dimmish and practically disappear 
 throughout the nation when our open shop plan of business operation 
 becomes the universal reality which is its destiny. 
 
 The New Sky Line of January I, 1921, describes the progress 
 Little Rock has made since the open shop declaration of Decem- 
 ber, 1919: 
 
 At that time this city was a galvanized union labor town, especially 
 in the building trades, the building trades council having a strangle hold 
 on practically all building operations. More than 2,000 business men, 
 firms and individuals, endorsed and supported the open shop move- 
 ment. Since that time building permits have increased, building operations 
 have gone on undisturbed by strikes, more than 90 per cent of the building 
 permits have been followed by open shop construction ; the building trades 
 council has dissembled and gone out of business, and the open shop has 
 been absolutely established in the building trades in Little Rock. The 
 local building trades unions are giving no trouble, and you would hardly 
 know they were in existence. The union members are working on open 
 shop work, on the same jobs with non-union men, and labor disturbances 
 are a thing of the past. The free employment bureau has obtained profit- 
 able employment for a greater number of men in proportion to the 
 population than was shown in Dallas, and the character of work shows 
 marked efficiency in contrast with the inefficiency and low output prior 
 to the open shop declaration. The wage scales have been maintained 
 and the production cost has materially decreased. A little more than a 
 year ago the bricklayers' union in negotiating a contract, held that 800 
 bricks laid in the wall was a fair day's work. Under open shop opera- 
 tions bricklayers have laid over 2,000 bricks per day. This is an evidence 
 of the increased production obtained under the open shop plan. 
 
 The most creditable part of the open shop movement in Little Rock 
 
194 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 is that there has never been any discrimination between union and non- 
 union labor, nor a disposition among the contractors to lessen the wage 
 scales or impose any changes in the working conditions to the disad- 
 vantage of the workers. The open shop plan has offered better opportu- 
 nities to the workmen than the closed shop, and the men have been 
 paid upon a basis of what they were able and willing to do the result 
 being highly satisfactory to all parties concerned, and resulting in more 
 and better work at a less cost to the contractors and builders. Within 
 six months after the open shop declaration the open shop was virtually 
 established in Little Rock, and a report made as early as last June 
 showed over 90 per cent of the work under construction to be under the 
 open shop. These things are not recounted to show by contrast that Dallas 
 has not done well in the open shop movement, or in a spirit of boastful- 
 ness over what has been accomplished in this city, but rather to show 
 that the movement in general is founded on a solid basis, and that 
 there is solidarity in the public sentiment behind the movement in Little 
 Rock. The real reason for the success of the movement both in Dallas 
 and Little Rock, and elsewhere as well, is because the open shop move- 
 ment is American in spirit, and is fundamentally sound in principle. 
 
 A recent survey of open shop conditions in 761 Seattle firms, 
 with 26,210 employes, shows that 91 per cent are open shops, 
 and 9 per cent are closed shops. A little over a year ago Seattle 
 was over 75 per cent closed shop. 
 
 Facts and Figures 
 
 Indianapolis was the twenty-second city in 1910. In 1920 
 it is the twenty-first. Its population is now 314,794, an increase 
 of 80,544 or thirty-five per cent since 1910. The Employers' 
 Association of Indianapolis reports : "Thirty-one new industries 
 have actually located here since January I, 1920, due largely to 
 open shop conditions." 
 
 Of twenty principal cities of the United States, according 
 to figures prepared by the Daily Bond Buyer of New York (an 
 authority on municipal statistics), Indianapolis has the lowest 
 "gross debt," the second lowest tax rate per $1,000; stands fourth 
 with respect to the "gross debt per capita." 
 
 Los Angeles, another open shop town, has the lowest tax 
 rate per $1,000 assessed valuation of property. 
 
 The New York Tribune on June 6, 1920, said : "In the ten 
 years that have elapsed since the last census Los Angeles has 
 seized the crown from San Francisco and become the leading 
 city of the Pacific Coast. 
 
 "What is the answer to this upset in the relative positions of the two 
 cities in the last ten years. Why has Los Angeles so far outstripped her 
 northern rival? The answer lies in the labor problem. Los Angeles has 
 
COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF THE OPEN SHOP 195 
 
 embraced the open shop principle, while San Francisco has placed her- 
 self under the dictation of organized labor, and Los Angeles has grown 
 and . prospered while San Francisco has stood still when she has not 
 gone backward." 
 
 "The open shop principle has worked so successfully in Los Angeles 
 that it has been adopted in Santa Barbara, San Pedro, Phoenix, and other 
 important cities; Phoenix having but recently declared herself for the 
 open shop after borrowing the fundamentals of the plan from Los Ange- 
 les." 
 
 While Los Angeles had the lowest tax rate per $1,000 of 
 assessed valuation, San Francisco was tenth. 
 
 Even San Francisco papers recognize the benefit the open 
 shop has been to Los Angeles. Thus, the Journal of Commerce 
 on September 7th, 1920, said: 
 
 "The announced determination of a large shipbuilding company to 
 remove its works to Los Angeles, chiefly on account of unsatisfactory labor 
 conditions in the bay region is only another illustration of killing the 
 goose that lays the golden egg. This is by no means the only case 
 of large industries forsaking San Francisco to locate in the southern 
 city, for the same cause. Los Angeles is building up a manufacturing 
 center which has made it the most popular city of the Pacific Coast. This 
 is in the face of the fact that all natural conditions appear to be in favor 
 of San Francisco. 
 
 "This is one of the fruits of Union Labor domination carried to 
 extremes. With cheaper living conditions, and more continuous employ- 
 ment, Los Angeles offers the worker more inducement than he can find 
 in San Francisco. * * * No one can truthfully say that Los Angeles is 
 prospering at our expense by robbing the worker. It is not true. In 
 Los Angeles the condition of the worker probably averages better than 
 it does in this city. That is not because wages are more in dollars, but 
 because prices being lower, the wage dollars will buy more of the com- 
 forts of life. Stability in labor conditions is more to be desired by the 
 employer than anything else. He wants to know that he can depend 
 upon getting a dollar's worth of work done for each dollar he pays in 
 wages, and that he will not be put to inconvenience and loss by frequent 
 and unjustifiable strikes. The employer requires a condition where he 
 knows that he is in command of his own shop and does not have to bow 
 to the dictation of hostile outside and sometimes rival forces. 
 
 "These conditions must be brought about in San Francisco, if the 
 place is to prosper as it should. They can only be won through the open 
 shop. To that policy the efforts of the entire business community should 
 be directed. The Journal of Commerce stands firmly for the open shop 
 as the only just and legal relationship that can flourish." 
 
 From 1899 to 1914, before the war, the number of Los 
 Angeles wage-earners increased 26,179; in San Francisco the 
 increase was 797. 
 
196 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 I. H. Rice, president of the Merchants' and Manufacturers' 
 Association of Los Angeles says (in Manufacturers Record, July 
 29, 1920) : 
 
 "The census figures of this city unquestionably have an eloquent 
 story to tell the closed shop towns of this country. We have the advan- 
 tage of the open shop exemplified in the fact that many industries have 
 come here from San Francisco in recent years because we are able to 
 offer them freedom from industrial unrest." 
 
 Current Opinion for August says : "One indication of what the 
 open shop has done for the Southern California city is that in a circum- 
 ference of five square blocks, ten class A office buildings are now in the 
 course of construction or are shortly to be started." 
 
 The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company just completed a 
 few months ago a $10,000,000 plant in Los Angeles which will 
 employ several thousand workers. The president of the com- 
 pany declares that Los Angeles was selected because it is an 
 open -shop city. 
 
 Los Angeles had the third greatest population percentage 
 increase in the last decade of the large cities 80.3 per cent. 
 Akron, Ohio, which increased 201.8 per cent and Detroit, which 
 increased 113.4 per cent, ranking first and second, are both strong 
 "open shop" centers. The increase in "closed shop" San Francisco 
 was 21.9 per cent. 
 
 In Dallas, Texas, which had the fifth largest increase, an 
 Open Shop Association was organized a little over a year ago. 
 Before its organization $8,000,000 worth of building construction 
 was being tied up by labor troubles ; such difficulties have ceased 
 under the new open shop policy. 
 
 With regard to Akron the Manufacturers Record of July 
 29, 1920, says: 
 
 "There are now nearly 30 tire and rubber factories; all of them on 
 an open-shop basis. The triumph of the open shop in Akron came only 
 after a long and bitter struggle, chiefly between the years 1913 and 1915. 
 At the present time the rubber workers are not unionized; the workmen 
 are paid on a liberal basic wage under the piecework system, which offers a 
 genuine stimulus to individual effort. And these workmen are declared 
 to be both contented and decidedly prosperous." 
 
 The Open Shop Review for October, 1920 quotes the 
 Oklahoma Employer-' 
 
 "The population of Danbury, Connecticut, has decreased 6.6 per cent 
 since 1910, according to the United 'States Census figures, and impartial 
 observers there, according to the newspapers, assert that Danbury's popu- 
 lation would have increased at least 10 per cent had it not been for the 
 
COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF THE OPEN SHOP 197 
 
 disastrous hatters' strike. The effects of that strike, they say, are still 
 felt by every industry in the community. This appears to be the result 
 of long strikes everywhere." 
 
 Open Shop Detroit, which had the second largest increase in 
 population, has the fifth smallest gross debt in the United 
 States; has the third lowest tax rate per $1,000 of assessed 
 valuation (the three lowest cities are all "open shop" towns) ; 
 only four towns have a lower per capita gross debt or net debt. 
 
 In the New York Daily News Record of November 9, 1920, 
 appears the story of the success of the open shop in Buffalo. 
 The movement has progressed until now over fifty per cent of 
 the chief industries of the city are operating on the open shop 
 plan; these include the clothing manufacturers, merchant tailors, 
 silk and knitting mills, neckwear manufacturers, corset manufac- 
 turers, and many others. 
 
 According to prominent employers, production in the garment 
 and textile industries hasi greatly increased since the open shop 
 was established. 
 
 The Chamber of Commerce says that largely as a result of 
 the establishment of the open shop, many new industries have 
 come to Buffalo. They are spending $100,000,000 and will employ 
 over 20,000 workers in the Buffalo district. 
 
 Industrial Paterson, the official bulletin of the Associated 
 Industries of Paterson, says in its issue of December 24, 1920, 
 that from 1910 to 1920 the population of Paterson increased 
 only 8.2 per cent. This is ascribed to the fact that Paterson has 
 been a "Closed Shop" city. 
 
 The Los Angeles Times of December 12, 1920, says that Los 
 Angeles is now the tenth American city in industrial importance. 
 It was the twenty-sixth city in 1914. Los Angeles is now "the 
 greatest clothing producer west of Chicago," and "the greatest 
 fishing port in the United States." Los Angeles has been an open 
 shop city for years. 
 
 The Survey, a strong closed shop supporter, in its November 
 6, 1920 issue reviewed the record of Grand Rapids, Michigan, 
 an open shop city, since the local establishment of Prohibition 
 April 30, 1918. "Grand Rapids has never had a large class of 
 desperately poor families." It is stated on Page 184 that Grand 
 Rapids is the "second American city 1 in per cent of home owner- 
 ship" and that there has been "no serious labor disturbance since 
 1912." Wa^res, it is stated on Pagre 186, have "advanced faster 
 than prices" and freedom from serious strikes or lockouts * * * 
 has reinforced the result of higher wages." 
 
198 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 The Rights of Independent Labor 
 
 The National Association of Manufacturers is confident that 
 when the public understands the true nature of the closed shop 
 with its restrictive rules, limitations upon efficiency and inherent 
 creation of distrust and discord that the public will fully support 
 the open shop, which means that "the doors of no industry be 
 closed against American workmen because of their membership 
 or non-membership in any labor organization." We will force 
 no American workman and citizen to join with and accept the 
 principles of labor organizations which for any reason he does 
 not subscribe to or believe in. 
 
 (From an article on "The Extent of Trade Unionism," by 
 Dr. Leo Wolman, of the University of Michigan; in the Ameri- 
 can Labor Year Book, 1917-1918. Dr. Wolman's estimates as to 
 the extent of trade unionism in "organizable" trades are the most 
 liberal, probably, which have been made. They may be said to 
 represent the extreme claims of the closed-shop advocates, and 
 show that 81.6 per cent of workers are not members of trade 
 unions . Shall the great majority be coerced?) 
 
 Accordingly, the most conservative survey of the situation would 
 indicate that in the United States in 1910, 92.3 per cent of the wage- 
 earners were unorganized; whereas the most liberal estimates would show 
 that 81.6 per cent of those persons who are susceptible of organization 
 were without the trade unions. 
 
 (From a decision of Judge Webster Thayer, of the Massa- 
 chusetts Superior Criminal Court, November 16, 1920.) 
 
 * * * This is a very important case for disposition. This case becomes 
 important, not because of the injuries inflicted, but rather on account of 
 the great principle involved ; a principle that affects the rights and liber- 
 ties of every individual in the Commonwealth as well as society itself. 
 It was a serious blow inflicted by this defendant which tended in its effect 
 to undermine and uproot that cardinal principle of the Constitution that 
 guarantees to every individual protection in his rights of liberty and 
 property. 
 
 No state, excepting under its police power can enact a law that will 
 deprive a person of his life, liberty or property. If the state cannot do 
 it, how foolish to think that an individual or a group of individuals can. 
 No question of human life is involved in the case at bar, but the rights 
 of liberty and property have been seriously assaulted. By liberty we 
 mean liberty of contract as well as the liberty of person; a liberty of 
 going where one sees fit to go and the liberty of contracting with whom- 
 soever one desires to contract, and to contract concerning any subject 
 matter he wishes to contract, providing ones going is lawful and his con- 
 
THE RIGHTS OF INDEPENDENT LABOR 199 
 
 tracting is not unlawful or in contravention of public policy. PROPERTY C 
 INCLUDES NOT ONLY THINGS TANGIBLE, BUT ALSO THE > 
 RIGHT TO WORK. Therefore the right to work wheresoever and for \ 
 whomsoever a person sees fit should be respected and cherished as sacredly 
 as property as the house in which one resides. * * * 
 
 Plea of Independent Workers 
 
 We submit to any interested parties the report of the Anthra- 
 cite Coal Strike Commission of 1902, the publication of which, 
 through the efforts of the American Federation of Labor, was 
 limited, and to the testimony given before the President's Com- 
 mission by the non-union mine workers. These men demanded 
 increased wages rather than decrease of hours of labor and insisted 
 on the right to work as many hours as they choose and for an 
 opportunity to better their condition and increase their earning 
 capacity. From their plea before the Commission we quote as 
 follows : 
 
 "We believe it to be an inalienable and undoubted right to work when 
 we can obtain it, and to receive as compensation for it the best price we 
 can obtain. And we further believe that the laws of the land vouchsafe 
 to us protection from insult, outrage, violence, molestation or interference 
 in the performance of our labors, and in order that we shall not be dis- 
 turbed in the free and full exercise of these rights, we most respectfully 
 urge that the assertion of them be made a part of the finding in this pro- 
 ceeding. 
 
 "In our effort to earn a livelihood for ourselves, our families and 
 those dependent upon us, we have been most outrageously interfered with. 
 Our homes have been assulted, and the lives of ourselves and those 
 dear to us threatened. On our way to and from work we have been 
 stoned, clubbed, beaten, insulted, jeered at, and the same course of out- 
 rageous treatment has attended us at our places of employment. 
 
 "And this serious and outrageous course of conduct toward us was 
 by no means confined to our homes and places of employment. It fol- 
 lowed us everywhere. We have been hung in effigy in public places. The 
 vicious and unlawful boycott has been practiced to such an extent upon 
 us, that merchants dealing in the necessaries of life have been forbidden 
 to furnish us, even with food and clothing. In church where we worship, 
 the service has been interrupted by members of the union because of our 
 presence there. Our names have been published in conspicuous places as 
 being 'unfair' and enemies to labor. In very many instances we have been 
 obliged to stop work on account of fear, and we have been in constant 
 terror. All kinds of crimes, even murder of our comrades and fellow- 
 workmen, have been committed, for no other reason than that we insisted 
 upon our right to work, and against this course of conduct we emphati- 
 cally protest." 
 
 The above is taken from pages 95 and 96 of the official report. 
 
20O OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 (From "Labor in Politics," by Charles Norman Fay. Pages 
 J52-I54-) 
 
 Many thousands of laboring men prefer their independence and 
 refuse to be held up for union dues. Many hundreds of employers, though 
 the majority are indifferent, refuse to contract for the closed shop; some 
 as a mere matter of business policy, but many more, in my observation, 
 because they refuse to betray the constitutional right of every man, 
 employer or laborer to hire or work without the dictation of any other 
 man or group of men. One of the largest employers in Boston, lately 
 said to me, that he would lose every dollar he had invested, and if necesr 
 sary would die for the "open shop," as a true American. He employs 
 thousands of men without regard to union or non-union membership. 
 My own feeling was just the same when I was an employer, that I would 
 never be party to taking advantage of the necessity of a workingman, 
 to compel him to pay tribute to a union, in order to qualify for employ- 
 ment in my shop. I have shown elsewhere how in the course of a strike 
 in my own factory we discovered a strong preference among workers in 
 Chicago for the strictly non-union shop. The sentiment for liberty pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Nevertheless, it is after all a matter of business interest to close his 
 shop to non-union labor, or to union labor, or to maintain an open shop 
 to both. He has an absolute right to do so, and to put sentiment aside. I 
 cannot believe, however, that any intelligent and conscientious clergyman, 
 who ought by virtue of his profession to put sentiment ahead of business 
 considerations, would, if he understood the matter, favor forcing the free 
 workman against his will to wear the collar or pay the tribute decreed for 
 him by the local union. Our courts of highest resort have uniformly 
 restrained the attempt to monopolize labor by virtue of "collective bar- 
 gaining" and the "closed shop," as an invasion of constitutional right. I 
 am glad to accept Judge Gary's maintenance of the open shop in the 
 great steel industry, as dictated by love of American freedom as well 
 as sound business judgment. I would urge the pulpit not ignorantly to 
 condemn the law and the bench, but to study with open mind as well as 
 open heart the intent and the result of bringing all industry within the 
 grasp of a labor autocracy, the dream of Organized Labor. 
 
 No Tolerance of Tyranny 
 
 (From Report of Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, 
 appointed by President Roosevelt, in 1903.) 
 
 To say this is not to deny the legal right of any man or set of men 
 voluntarily to refrain from social intercourse or business relations with 
 any persons who he or they, with or without good reason, dislike. This 
 may sometimes be un-Christian, but it is not illegal. But when it is a 
 concerted purpose of a number of persons, not only to abstain them- 
 selves from such intercourse, but to render the life of their victim mis- 
 erable by persuading and intimidating others so to refrain, such purpose 
 is a malicious one, and the concerted attempt to accomplish it is a con- 
 
THE RIGHTS OF INDEPENDENT LABOR 201 
 
 spiracy at common law and should receive the punishment due to such a 
 crime. 
 
 Examples of such "secondary boycotts" are not wanting in the record 
 of the case before the commission. A young school mistress of intelligence, 
 character, and attainments was so boycotted and her dismissal from 
 employment compelled for no other reason than that a brother, not living 
 in her immediate family, chose to work contrary to the wishes and will 
 of the striking miners. A lad about 15 years old, employed in a drug 
 store, was discharged owing to threats made to his employer by a delega- 
 tion of the strikers, on behalf of their organization, for the reason that 
 his father had chosen to return to work before the strike was ended. In 
 several instances tradesmen were threatened with a boycott that is, that 
 all connected with the strikers would withhold from them their custom 
 and persuade others to do so if they continued to furnish the necessaries 
 of life to the families of certain workmen who had come under the ban 
 of displeasure of the striking organizations. This was carrying the boy- 
 cott to an extent which was condemned by Mr. Mitchell, president of the 
 United Mine Workers of America, in his testimony before the commis- 
 sion, and which certainly deserves the reprobation of all thoughtful and 
 law-abiding citizens. Many other instances of boycott are disclosed in the 
 record of this case. 
 
 In social disturbances of this kind with which we are dealing the 
 temptation to resort to this weapon oftentimes becomes strong, but is 
 none the less to be resisted. It is an attempt of many, by concerted action, 
 to work their will upon another who has exercised his legal right to 
 differ with them in opinion and in conduct. It is tyranny pure and simple, 
 and as such is hateful, no matter whether attempted to be exercised by 
 few or many, by operators or by workmen, and no society that tolerates 
 or condones it can justly call itself free. 
 
 (From testimony before the Industrial Relations Committee, 
 June 29, 1914, of Mr. John Breen, grievance officer of the Tapes- 
 tiy Carpet Workers of Philadelphia. Page 3049 of the record. 
 Union Official says men refuse to join the unions, whose restrict- 
 ive rules they would have to obey, because they are ambitious.) 
 
 MR. BUSIER: Mr. Breen, to what do you attribute the fact that you 
 do not, since these people are enjoying the union benefits and more could 
 be enjoyed perhaps by a stronger organization, that you do not unionize 
 the trade more thoroughly in Philadelphia? 
 
 MR. BREEN: Well, I will state one of the great reasons is the ambi- 
 tion on the part of some of the men to become bosses, even though they 
 receive salaries much below that the position they fill would require. 
 
 Workers Attracted by Open Shop Conditions 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. C. R. Gore, business agent of the 
 Los Angeles carpenters district council, before the Industrial 
 Relations Commission, September 10, 1914. Page 5635 of the 
 record. Mr. Gore admits that many workers go to Los Angeles 
 
202 v OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 because they are told it is an open shop town where they can 
 work without belonging to a union.) 
 
 MR. GORE: Why, I have seen different circulars and seen the adver- 
 tisements in the papers and magazines, and they were going on to state 
 the conditions, and that as far as the climate was concerned and wages, 
 that men were in demand, and that there was a high rate of wages. 
 
 COMMISSIONER COMMONS : They put that up as one of the talking 
 points for wage earners? 
 
 MR. GORE: Yes, sir; and also that it was an open shop town and a 
 man was free to do as he felt like. 
 
 COMMISSIONER COMMONS: Any workman that came here, whether 
 he belonged to the union or not, he could find work? 
 
 MR. GORE: Yes, sir. 
 
 COMMISSIONER COMMONS: That would tend to bring in non-union 
 men here? 
 
 MR. GORE: Why, I should contend so. In fact, I know this to be 
 true, absolutely to be true. If I am permitted to put it that way, men that 
 have dropped out of the organization, and particularly in the city of St. 
 Louis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and other places, they have come to the city 
 of Los Angeles. There was no room for them there. Also the same 
 thing applies to certain contractors. They had conditions that didn't just 
 exactly suit them back in those cities, and they came here, where they 
 were free to do as they felt like. 
 
 (From testimony of Mr. Earl Constantine, then manager of 
 the Employers' Association of Washington, before the Industrial 
 Relations Commission, August 6, 1914. Mr. Constantine shows 
 that open shop employers are able because of improved efficiency 
 to pay high wages.) 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: You say your association is not opposed 
 to collective bargaining. Under this idea of the so-called open shop; how 
 could collective bargaining be successful if 30 per cent or 20 per cent 
 of the people were organized and 70 per cent or 80 per cent were not 
 organized? 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: If, as I said a few minutes ago, in order to 
 belong to the organized 30 per cent, a man would have to have a certain 
 degree of efficiency as a prerequisite to membership in that 30 per cent, 
 then he commands the labor market and I have to employ him because 
 T must have efficiency in my plant, and in that you would find the 
 strength of organized labor. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: Do you believe it is possible for a work- 
 ingman, as an individual to increase his wages, to reduce his hours 
 and to improve his condition of employment to-day? 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: We have a large number of plants a number of 
 plants right here in the city of Seattle, open-shop plants, where the 
 wages are higher by the way than the prevailing scale in the same line 
 of work gotten by unions. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: How was that brought about by the 
 organized men? 
 
THE RIGHTS OF INDEPENDENT LABOR 203 
 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: No, sir. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: How was that brought about? 
 MR. CONSTANTINE: It was brought about because the modern manu- 
 facturer believes in efficient labor, and he is willing to pay for it. 
 
 The "Scab" 
 
 (Extracts from the "Philosophy of Trade Unions," by Dyer 
 D. Lum, first printed and published by the American Federation 
 of Labor in 1892; reprinted in 1914; still circulated from their 
 national headquarters January, 1921. This gives the view of the 
 closed shopper on the rights of the "scab" or independent worker 
 who is willing to take a job without asking if all his fellow work- 
 ers carry the union card.) 
 
 The non-unionist is but an indirect enemy; in withholding his afd 
 he by so much weakens the common line of defense. Though often 
 his acts may directly, without conscious effort, aid the enemy, he need 
 not be a traitor to his fellow toilers. Every great movement has some 
 object of superlative loathing; its Judas Iscariots, its Benedict Arnolds, 
 its Pigotts, its paid spies and informers, its Pinkerton thugs men dead 
 to all honor, blind to mutual interest, dead to all but the miserable crav- 
 ings of their shriveled souls. In the industrial conflict the instinct 
 of workers has significantly termed its type of this species "scab"! 
 Loud have been the appeals for sympathy with the workman who falls out 
 from the line to better his condition, or relieve the distress of a starving 
 wife and family. But to prevent just such contingencies is the mission 
 of the Union. One who is forced to the necessity of wage labor and 
 refuses to share the common danger, but either openly or steathily 
 goes over to the enemy to accept his terms, is a deserter. By his act 
 he has sundered the social bonds of mutual interest which united him to 
 us, has served notice that he asks no aid, expects no sympathy, seeks 
 no quarter. At his acted word we take him. 
 
 The time has passed for circumlocution in handling this subject. If 
 trade unionism has a logical ground for existence, if organized resistance 
 is preferable to slavish submission, if the social ties which unite us in 
 mutual alliance are of higher validity than the selfish cravings of an 
 unsocial nature, the relation between the trade union and its sycophantic 
 enemy the "scab" is that existing between the patriot and the paid 
 reformer. No sentimentalism will attenuate; no olive branch will be 
 extended; no tears will be shed over whatever misfortune befalls him, 
 nor aught but utter loathing be felt for him. He stands forth by his 
 own act recreant to duty. .Bankrupt in honor, infidel to faith, destitute of 
 social sympathy, and a self-elected target. We here but express clearly 
 what workingmen feel in every industrial crisis, and we deliberately 
 express it that at all times such men be regarded as possible "informers" 
 and traitors. 
 
 To sum up, to assert egoism against mutual interests is unsocial 
 and hence a denial of the mutual basis upon which equitable relation 
 alone can exist. Thus the "scab" is not merely unsocial, but by his acted 
 word virtually places himself with the industrial invaders and becomes 
 
204 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 an enemy. Equal freedom cannot be strained to mean a denial of mutual 
 interests. Social evolution is not a mere theory, but a record of facts, 
 and no fact is more strongly brought out than that progress has resulted 
 only in so far as mutual interests have been recognized. We do not insti- 
 tute them, they compel us. 
 
 Therefore, primarily as human beings, become so by social evolu- 
 tion, and by the social environment in which the present struggle is 
 conditioned, and recognizing as the goal of industrial advance the mutual- 
 ity of interests involved in the assertion of equal freedom, in strict 
 accord with all sociological deductions, and with the utmost submis- 
 sion to the higher law permeating social growth, we reverently raise our 
 hats to say prayerfully: "To hell with the scab!" 
 
 Both before and during a strike a union door should always swing 
 inward to all applicants whom reason or self-interest may convince. But 
 whoever deliberately refuses alliance with organized labor, who from 
 cowardice or selfishness stays without to skulk back over the field, 
 like a ghoul for personal gain, by his or her act becomes an enemy. 
 Your duty toward them will be determined by the exigencies of the 
 situation. As in our civil war the timid Union men in the South and the 
 blatant Copperhead in the North, received but little respect from either 
 side, so in the industrial conflict they are despised by those who urge 
 them on, and disowned by their more resolute fellows. "He who is not 
 with us, is against us." 
 
 (An article entitled U A Scab is a Hero," by F. W. Phelps, 
 editor of the Pacific Coast Mechanic.) 
 
 I love the word scab. Time was when I shunned and shirked it. 
 It seemed to have about it an unwelcome ring and an odium which 
 offended. It seems to suggest something for which I did not stand. 
 It seemed to be the name and habit of an economic leper, or a social 
 outcast, or something of frightful and devilish form. But labor agitators 
 have made me love the word. It has sloughed all its old meaning. All 
 its hideous trappings have fallen away from it. It shines in a new, fresh 
 sitting, and, in our time, has assumed a new, grand meaning. 
 
 Scab! What good American, in love with liberty of speech, of action 
 and of conscience, is not a scab? 
 
 Who and what is a scab, anyway? 
 
 If I work or worship untrammeled, if I scorn industrial despotism; 
 if I hate individual or collective dictation or coercion; if I refuse to 
 lick the hands of parasitic puppets; if I refuse homage and obedience to 
 men, or aggregations of men, who presume, unasked, to do my thinking 
 and my deciding for me, if I refuse "to bend the pregnant hinges of the 
 new," and kotow, and salaam, to men for whom I have scant respect 
 or no respect at all, with thrift and a good job as a reward for my 
 fawning then, in such circumstances, for these reasons am I a scab! 
 
 Any man who loves and values his own liberty, and who elects to 
 paddle his own boat is a scab. 
 
 Put me in that class, for I belong there ! Born in America, and draw- 
 ing whatever of civic and political inspiration I am fit to draw from the 
 free atmosphere of my native heath, I was born to the cherished rights 
 
THE RIGHTS OF INDEPENDENT LABOR 205 
 
 and unquestioned inclinations of a freeman; and if you want to call my 
 rose a scab, it will not smell less sweet to me on that account Go to; 
 and 
 
 "Lay on MacDuff; 
 
 And damned be he who first cries hold, enough !" 
 
 I will take my place in the long line of men who have refused to be 
 haltered and harnessed by their inferiors; in the line with Jefferson 
 and Paine, with Washington and Franklin, with Henry and Otis, and in 
 the line, too, with the school children of this city, and of other children 
 in this city, and of other cities, and in defense of them, who are taunted, 
 and snubbed and jeered because their daddies are scabs! 
 
 Good God ! When the swollen and impudent tyrannies of irresponsible 
 labor agitators reach our school yards, to wring the hearts of our children, 
 and to attempt to torture them into shame, and a disrespect for their 
 fathers, is not it a challenge to the manhood and womanhood of the 
 nation ? 
 
 Surely it is time for somebody to cry out against these infamies. 
 
 In heaven's name what good can come of the school-yard taunt : 
 
 "Your papa is a scab"? 
 
 Are we still to be put in the pillory and burnt at the stake because 
 of our opinions? 
 
 Are we freemen or slaves? 
 
 For my own part I will take the scab's heritage, I love the scab's 
 freedom, and the courageous independence which impels him to do his 
 little do in his own way. Whatever else may be said of the scab, he 
 has no boss in the offensive meaning of the word. There are no shackles 
 on him ; no debasing blinders ; no tags, and no parasitic overlordship to 
 make a mere manikin out of him. He is free to come and go, to join 
 or not to join, to work or to play, to do or not to do, as his own inclina- 
 tions, his own interests, his own conscience may suggest, and, in the sum 
 of it, that is liberty, personal liberty in one of its best and most essential 
 meanings. 
 
 I am that kind of a scab ; that is all any man means when he calls 
 me a scab, and as most Americans are scabs of this same brand I do not 
 feel at all lonesome. 
 
 Hypocrisy and the Constitution 
 
 John E. Edgerton, president of the National Association of 
 Manufacturers, said recently: 
 
 "We could not profess without arrant hypocrisy our fervid attachment 
 to the concepts and immortal pronouncements of the great Constitution of 
 the greatest government on earth, nor confess our faith in its righteous^- 
 intent, if at the same time we preached or practiced the doctrine that a man\ 
 should be denied the right to work unless he holds a membership in any 1 
 organization subordinate to our government." 
 
2o6 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 Some Ethical Aspects of the Open Shop 
 
 Systems and organizations are justified only as long as they 
 advance the welfare of society as a whole. There are principles 
 of social justice, of justice to all parties concerned, which should 
 prevail. They will prevail when and because the public takes 
 enough interest to act. 
 
 Views of Pope Leo XIII 
 
 (Pope Leo in his famous "Encyclical on the Condition of 
 Labor," said italics ours) : 
 
 "Associations of every kind and especially those of workingmen, are 
 now far more common than formerly. In regard to many of these there 
 is no need at present to inquire whence they spring, what are their objects 
 or what means they use. But there is a good deal of evidence which 
 goes to prove that many of these societies are in the hands of invisible 
 leaders, and are managed on principles far from compatible with Christian- 
 ity and the public well-being; and that they do their best to get into their 
 hands the whole field of labor and to force workmen either to join them 
 or to starve." 
 
 Both Unjust and Wicked 
 
 (From a sermon on the "Closed Shop," by Rev. Dr. David 
 James Burrell, pastor of the Marble Collegiate Presbyterian 
 Church, New York City, the oldest church on the continent. 
 Printed in pamphlet No. 26 of the National Association of Manu- 
 facturers.) 
 
 "Bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfill the Law of Christ." 
 Galatians 6 :2. 
 
 I have nothing to say against the labor unions as such; but I am 
 opposed to their revolutionary schemes. 
 
 The right of organization for lawful ends is universally conceded. 
 Let us go a step further and say that it is not only right but expedient. 
 First, for benevolent purposes, such as mutual insurance and sick bene- 
 fits, the relief of the unemployed and the care of widows and dependent 
 children. Second, it is wise and prudent to combine for mutual protection 
 and defense against all encroachments. The good Book says, "Two are 
 better than one; for if one fall the other will lift him up." Our Dutch 
 forefathers used to say, Een dracht maakt, this is, "In union there is 
 strength." Even the strike, when rightly understood and fairly con- 
 ducted, is quite justifiable. Third, organization is both wise and neces- 
 sary for the betterment of conditions, particularly as to suitable hours 
 and equitable wages, and safety and sanitary conditions for workingmen. 
 
 But in the process of industrial evolution some strange and unwar- 
 rantable things have come to pass. The labor unions have, in my judg- 
 
SOME ETHICAL ASPECTS OF THE OPEN SHOP 207 
 
 ment, made three frightful mistakes. First, they have practically signed 
 away their freedom to unwise and incompetent leaders. It is bad enough 
 when a self-respecting artisan, at work with others in a well-conducted 
 shop, is constrained to throw down his saw or hammer at the dictation 
 of a walking delegate who suddenly appears and cries "Knock off !" It 
 is still worse when the same workman is under bonds to sacrifice both 
 reason and conscience at the direction of unprincipled leaders who have 
 recently been forced to call a halt at the very foot of the gallows-tree 
 Second, the resort to violence is a fatal mistake. The reference is not 
 merely to mobs and dynamite, but to all lawless methods whatsoever. Not 
 long ago I saw a line of "sandwichmen" at the corner of Broadway and 
 Thirty-fourth Street, carrying placards with this device, "Do not patronize 
 thus and so: They employ non-union men." If you follow that to its 
 logical conclusion, you will arrive at Los Angeles. But the third mistake 
 made by the labor unions is most lamentable of all. I mean the adoption 
 of the proposition known as the "closed shop." This has been approved 
 by the foremost leaders of organized labor and has been openly defended 
 in one of our magazines by Mr. Darrow, the attorney of the McNamara 
 brothers at Los Angeles, who took a retainer of $50,000, for their defense, 
 and kept his retainer with the perquisites after he confessedly knew that 
 his clients were guilty. 
 
 l^hat is this proposition? The closed shop means that a man who 
 declines to join the union shall not be permitted to work; the shop is 
 closed against him. 
 
 This is one of the most unjust, unreasonable, unrighteous and des- 
 perately wicked and suicidal principles ever formulated by any associa- 
 tion of civilized men^ I make that statement advisedly and in sustaining 
 it I propose to make an appeal to the calm reasoning of laboring men. 
 
 First, let us approach the question from the industrial point of view. 
 
 The closed shop involves a denial of the freedom of labor, and so far 
 forth it is an attack on the individual rights of every man. It is a singu- 
 lar thing when one stops to reflect upon it that laboring men should 
 question the right to work for one's living. 
 
 But the industrial folly of the closed shop is seen most clearly in the 
 fact that it reacts disastrously on organized labor. It is a suicidal policy. 
 It demoralizes the unions and puts them obliviously in the wrong. It 
 provokes the antagonism and, not infrequently, the retaliation of those 
 who would sincerely befriend them. It raises the cost of living and for- 
 feits the sympathy of all right-thinking men. And the laborer himself 
 must pay for it. 
 
 It is estimated that the strike of 1894 in Chicago involved a loss of 
 eighty millions of dollars. Who paid the bill? Did capital pay it? Or, 
 the employers? Oh, no! The moment the wheels of industry began to 
 move again the employers set about recouping themselves for this loss and 
 closed their teeth with a new determination to crowd labor to the wall. 
 The common people, in the long run, paid every penny of it! 
 
 Secondly, let us consider the matter from the patriotic point of view. 
 
 In the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, in which are 
 laid down the rudimental principles of our constitutional fabric, we have 
 
208 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 the statement that "all men are created free and equal and with certain 
 inalienable rights ; among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- 
 ness." What does that mean? 
 
 It does not mean that all men are equal in weight or stature, in natural 
 gifts, or endowment, in acquired culture, in character, in education or in 
 accomplishment. It does mean that all men are equal before the law. 
 
 And this is the principle which differentiates our republic from all 
 other governments on earth. There are other countries where civil and 
 ecclesiastical freedom are valued as highly and guarded as jealously as 
 among us ; but ours is the only country in which there are no titled orders, 
 no privileged classes, no aristocracy except that which is measured by 
 the moral stature of a man. All men are equal, Jew and Greek, Bar- 
 barian and Cythian, rich and poor, employer and employe, striker and 
 strike-breaker, unionist and "scab," all are equal before the law. The 
 closed shop is a clear and flagrant violation of that principle; and, for a 
 true American, that should be enough to say against it. 
 
 But further, it is a violation of the American doctrine of human 
 rights. How reads the preamble? All men have "certain inalienable 
 rights; among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." To 
 think of the pursuit of happiness without the privilege of earning an 
 honest livelihood is impossible. The primal law, "Thou shalt eat thy 
 bread. by the sweat of thy face," is at the very basis of a comfortable 
 life. A man has no business to live and certainly he cannot enjoy life 
 without it. 
 
 (When you say, "A man has no right to labor, except on my terms," 
 you reduce the toiling freeman to the level of a bondman. There was a 
 time in our country when some millions of negroes were in chain^ The 
 position taken by their owners was, "These men must work, but only as 
 we say." O'hey were Thtis^held as prisoners of poverty. And because 
 slavery was^at odds with the vital principles of our national life, it was a 
 foregone conclusion that slavery must go. But wherein did the position 
 of the slave-owners of the South differ from that of our labor unions 
 to-day ? Do they not say, "You may labor ; but only on condition that 
 you join us; a^d then only on such conditions as We are pleased to lay 
 down for you?^ 
 
 We are f5fm of saying that the glory of America is in the third 
 estate; that is in our workingmen. The ideal American is not a multi- 
 millionaire; and certainly not a mendicant; he is the Village Blacksmith, 
 of whom Longfellow sings : 
 
 His brow is wet with honest sweat; 
 
 He earns whate'er he can; 
 And he looks the whole world in the face, 
 
 For he owes not any man. 
 
 But in the philosophy of organized labor that is not so. The unions 
 say, "Hold on! This blacksmith shall not earn 'whate'er he can/ he shall 
 not earn anything until he joins the Blacksmiths' Union; and after that he 
 shall earn only what we say." Here, truly is a new order of things in 
 America. 
 
SOME ETHICAL ASPECTS OF THE OPEN SHOP 209 
 
 Patriotism and the Closed Shop 
 
 But, further still, the closed shop is a violation of civic loyalty. The 
 terms of our franchise require that no man shall be a citizen who does 
 not yield an undivided fealty to the republic. The labor unions have 
 undertaken to set up an imperium in imperio; that is, a government within 
 a government; claiming the right to make laws and prescribe rules with- 
 out reference to higher authority. And the trust thus organized is unin- 
 corporated; in other words, it refuses to be responsible for its acts. (Tt 
 formulates a system of laws which, whether so intended or not, do prac- 
 tically supersede the national law of non-interference with the rights of 
 other merw By committing themselves to this policy the unionized work- 
 men of our country, who ought to be foremost in supporting its principles 
 of justice, have arrayed themselves against themT? Is that a hard saying? 
 Witness the mob violence, the dynamite plots and their indorsement by 
 some of the foremost leaders of organized labor, and the contributions 
 of the members of the unions to the defense of the McNamaras without 
 this slightest knowledge as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoners at 
 the bar. 
 
 There is something to be said for the foreigners ; for the Huns and 
 Slovaks and Bohemians who have come so recently to our country that 
 they are ignorant of its right and privileges; but what shall be said for 
 skilled workingmen of American birth and lineage, who lend their coun- 
 tenance to these things? It is not to be wondered at that an assassin, a 
 foreigner just released from a twenty-year sentence, should go about the 
 country arm in arm with a female anarchist advocating the closed shop ; 
 but it is a source of immeasurable wonder that men of American birth 
 should sell their birthright for a mess of pottage in this way. 
 
 The Closed Shop and Religion 
 
 It remains, thirdly, to look at this matter from the religious point of 
 view. 
 
 Ours is a Christian nation. This is questioned in certain quarters by 
 foreigners who have recently settled among us; but inasmuch as our 
 Supreme Courts have repeatedly affirmed the fact, no true American ques- 
 tions it. 
 
 Our Government rests on the brotherhood of man, which is a corol- 
 lary of the fatherhood of God. The preamble of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, to which reference has been made, is merely a transcript of 
 Paul's manifesto on Mars' Hill, "God hath made of one blood all nations 
 of men, for to dwell upon the face of the earth." 
 
 Then follows the correlative proposition laid down in the Golden Rule 
 of Jesus, "Do unto others as ye would be done by." This is only another 
 way of saying what Jacob said to his sons, "Ye be brethren; see that ye 
 fall out not along the way." The controlling factor in the solution of the 
 industrial problem is the social duty of unselfishness. The sentiment of 
 organized labor as laid down in the closed shop is, "Look out for number 
 one," while the policy of a Republican government, in which all men are 
 free and equal, is, "Look out for number two." The only way to secure and 
 preserve our personal rights is to yield the same rights to other men. 
 
 I 
 
s* 
 
 2io OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 "The square deal" is the enemy of the closed shop. If a man be out of a 
 "job," the thing for workmen to do is to lend him a hand; not a closed 
 hand to strike him down, but a "glad hand" to lift him up. 
 
 Another of the great principles to which our republic stands com- 
 mitted is known as "the voluntary principle in religion," that is, a man 
 may worship or refuse to worship, as he pleases and in his own wa^ This 
 involves the separation of church and state. It is accordingly provided, 
 in the First Amendment to our Constitution, that there shall never be 
 an establishment of religion; that is, a state church. This does not mean 
 that we are not committed to religion. Our theory is that church and 
 state are co-ordinate powers, both alike ordained of God; that the church 
 has to do with religion and the state with civil government. Each sup- 
 ports the other and each to the other says, "Hands off." 
 
 /Now suppose that a church were to take this position: "You shall 
 not worship unless you come into our fellowship; and if you worship at 
 all you must do so according to the rites and ceremonies which we pre- 
 scribe for you?! That is precisely what the pagan church did in Nero's 
 day. It required all Christians to bow before the gods of the Pantheon; 
 he who would not cast a wreath into the lap of Cybele was doomed to 
 die. What dreadful days those were! The Anglican Church in the time 
 of the Stuarts did the same thing, so that non-conformists must whisper 
 their prayers in conventicles among the hills. This was the sort of perse- 
 cution that drove the Pilgrim Fathers to the New World. "What sought 
 they thus afar? Freedom to worship God!" W/e recognize at once the 
 violation of common right and justice in this case. |Ft is, hosusver, 'no 
 more flagrant than that of the labor unions in refusing to theirfellow 
 workmen the common right to earn a livelihood unless they will consent 
 to labor as the unions sa$H 
 
 For these reasons I affirm that the closed shop has no ground to stand 
 on. It savors of barbarism. It is hostile to industry. It is unpatriotic 
 to the last degree. It contravenes the genius of true religion and par- 
 ticularly of the religion of Christ. It is, far and away, behind the spirit 
 of the age. 
 
 The Issue 
 
 . There are many well-meaning people in this country as in other coun- 
 tries, who think that a remedy for labor unrest fostered and inflamed 
 by men who would rather agitate than work, will be found in making 
 concessions to elements that are of evil tendency. They must learn the 
 lesson that no concession that society can reasonably make will satisfy 
 the forces of disorder. 
 
 The issue is plain. It is a struggle between law and lawlessness. It 
 is an issue which has now reached its culmination in this country. To-day 
 the American people each man, woman and child of whom is directly 
 interested in our common industrial welfare must face the question 
 whether rampant and criminal unionism or law and order and common 
 justice shall prevail. 
 
SOME ETHICAL ASPECTS OF THE OPEN SHOP 211 
 
 Consider the Public 
 
 (From "The Open Door," by Rev. S. Parkes Cadman, of 
 Brooklyn, one of the most noted clergymen of the United States. 
 Pamphlet No. 8 of the National Association of Manufacturers.) 
 
 I am glad that I can stand upon a completely non partisan and 
 unembarrassed platform. There is only one way in which our difficulties 
 in connection with the labor issue can be solved, and that is the way 
 indicated by the title of this address. "The Open Door." By that I 
 mean, the right of every workingman and of every professional man and 
 of every type of man to sell his labor and any other product he has for 
 sale, in a free and unrestricted market. Notwithstanding the advices 
 you may hear from high or low quarters in favor of an opposite policy, 
 you may depend upon it that the greatness and prosperity of this coun- 
 try at large depend upon its adherence to this simple principle of liberty 
 and justice. If by mutual consent and arrangement free contracting 
 parties can provide schemes that will ameliorate some harsh features of 
 competition, so much the better, but they must be free in making their 
 contracts, and this seems to me to be a matter for personal initiative rather 
 than for legislation. 
 
 Indeed these things cannot be accomplished by legislation, and any 
 interference of such with employers and employes will not only contra- 
 vene the legal rights in the case it will defer the reforms for which 
 we hope. In other words, however well meant such an interference may 
 be, it will end by defeating itself. 
 
 The interference of the union with the transaction of business is an 
 offense. Sometimes it is a minor offense, subjecting the citizen to nothing 
 worse than discourtesy and inconvenience. Sometimes the offense passes 
 the limits of petty annoyance and becomes an obstacle in the way of 
 private prosperity. I refer to that type of union whirh keeps men 
 back from doing their honest best, which makes idleness a precept, 
 -estricts the output, resists the introduction of improved appliances, limits 
 :he number of apprentices, and watches for opportunities to take advan- 
 age of an employer's necessities. 
 
 Let me say that this is* an intolerable tyranny which stops transpor- 
 ation, empties the market, shuts the mine and puts the public in peril of 
 old and hunger. That third party, the public, must be reckoned with, 
 nd unless unions can learn the lessons of experience, desist from vio- 
 ence and act within legal limits, the public will be against them. Nothing 
 /ill finally succeed in this country which is not based upon foundations 
 f law and reason. Not even for the sake of a righteous cause will a man 
 ield to tyranny, much less for an unrighteous one. 
 
 Could anything be more ridiculous if it were not wrong, than the atti- 
 
 ide of many unions toward the amount of labor a man shall do in a day? 
 
 talked with a plumber concerning this matter, and he said, "We have 
 
 ot to work by the rule of the poorest plumber as well as the best; he 
 
 iust have an opportunity. If we did much more than he does, we would 
 
 * discharged." Well, after admitting whatever there is in this plea, 
 
 contend that if a doctor worked on this principle, or a lawyer pleaded 
 
212 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 for his client on such a basis, the first to complain would be those 
 who now adopt it as a working plan. As little as you can do for as 
 much as you can get leads to disintegration, violates our commercial 
 honor, reduces our trade and makes our artisans incapable of competi- 
 tion with other countries. 
 
 Justice, Charity and the Open Shop 
 
 (From an article "The Closed or the Open Shop?" by Rev. 
 Paul L. Blakeley, a Jesuit priest.) 
 
 So much for the abstract. But a fairly common practical case,, the 
 source of much dissension, may be thus stated. John Jones, a union man, 
 is a worker in an open shop. He does his work well. But the owner, 
 Richard Smith, a bitter opponent of all unions, discovers that John Jones 
 holds a card. May he rightly discharge John Jones because of his mem- 
 bership in a union? 
 
 It may be answered that, considering the question on the ground of 
 justice alonei he may. The shop is his own. If he is not obliged even to 
 hire John Jones, a fortiori, he is not obliged, in the absence of definite 
 contract, to retain him. He may, if he wishes, discharge all his red- 
 headed employes, or his men who smoke cigarettes or drink soda-pop, 
 without violating justice. For as he is not obliged in justice to bring any 
 particular worker to his shop, so no obligation in justice arises (except 
 again in the case of contract) to keep any particular worker in his 
 shop, and he may discharge any at will. True, John Jones has a righi 
 to his union affiliations. But these affiliations do not and cannot consti- 
 tute a claim in justice upon Richard Smith for employment, or for reten 
 tion in employment. // they did, every employer would be at the com- 
 plete mercy of the union. 
 
 The union would really control the shop, investing Richard Smitl 
 with this right alone : to secure the money wherewith to pay worker: 
 whom he has not chosen and whom he does not wish to retain. 
 
 Thus may the question be solved on the principles of justice. 
 
 But on the grounds of charity, Richard Smith may easily offend b: 
 discharging John Jones summarily, on the sole indictment that he belong 
 to a union, and, in ordinary cases, he will so offend. But he will no 
 offend against justice, because John Jones has no claim in justice whicl 
 is violated by his discharge. Yet another aspect of the question must no 
 be omitted. To-day, a general practice discountenances summary dis 
 charge, except for grave offenses, which offenses do not exist in th 
 case we are discussing. The reason is clear. Dismissal without notic 
 entails additional hardship on the worker and his family, because to obtai 
 new work at an equal salary is often difficult But this general practic 
 or understanding, unless in a given case it amounts to a contract, nc 
 valid in the eyes of the law, perhaps, but none the less binding in cor 
 science, cannot make the employer's act an offense against charity. An 
 these offenses against charity are one of the most pozverful factors i 
 stirring up labor dissensions. A worker thus discharged does not sto 
 to weigh nice ethical distinctions, but, very naturally, considers himsel 
 the victim of gross injustice. 
 
SOME ETHICAL ASPECTS OF THE OPEN SHOP 213 
 
 Let us change the case somewhat. If the owner, Richard Smith, 
 should determine to force every man in his shop to join the union, might 
 he, without violating any canon of justice, discharge John Jones who 
 insisted upon remaining non-union? 
 
 He might, and for the reasons already given. Except in the case 
 of contract, John Jones has no claim, binding in justice, for retention in 
 Richard Smith's shop. 
 
 Similarly, Richard Smith, on attaining possession of an absolutely 
 unionised shop, might discharge every worker who refused to leave 
 the union. He would not offend against justice although he would have 
 a beautiful case of boycott on his shop, but it is difficult to see how 
 he could escape an offense against charity. For it is admitted, first, that 
 the worker needs some form of union for his protection, and next, that 
 with all their faults, the American labor unions have had a beneficent 
 influence in protecting the worker against the excesses of employers. 
 
 Hence, Richard Smith's action in dismissing his workers, simply 
 and solely because they refuse to set aside their right to belong to a 
 union, must be regarded as a defiance of common-sense, and prob- 
 ably as a violation of charity. 
 
 The long and short of all this prosing is that what is sauce for 
 the goose must also be sauce for the gander. The worker cannot insist 
 upon his own right to organize and then denounce employers as tyrants 
 when employers themselves proceed to organize. Nor can he praise an 
 employer for maintaining a strictly union shop, as is the employer's 
 right, and then, with any consistency, anathematize him for exercising 
 his right either to reject union men altogether or to conduct an open 
 shop. 
 
 It is understood, of course, that if John Jones, a union worker 
 in an open shop, proceeds to disorganize the policy of that shop by induc- 
 ing the other workers, through threats or legitimate argument, to join 
 the union, thus making the concern a "closed shop," the employer may 
 forthwith dismiss him without fear of violating either justice or charity. 
 Charity does not compel an employer to retain an employe who works 
 against his wishes, and justice is here not in question. Labor has suffered 
 much from capital, and that may often excuse the tendency of the 
 worker, once he feels the strength of the union at his back, to go to 
 excesses that quite equal in gravity, if not in frequency, the excesses of 
 capital. 
 
 But past injustice does not create for the laborer a right to retain 
 employment on terms dictated solely by himself or by his union. 
 
214 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 Views of Prominent Americans 
 Abraham Lincoln 
 
 "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but 
 let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example 
 assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." 
 
 "If you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great land- 
 marks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to sug- 
 gestions which would take away from its grandeur and mutilate the fair 
 symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that 
 all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated in 
 our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back!" 
 
 The Christian Science Monitor of February 14, 1921, con- 
 tained the following Jersey City dispatch : 
 
 That Abraham Lincoln would have believed in collective bargaining, 
 but not in the closed shop, was declared by John Hays Hammond, speak- 
 ing before the Lincoln Memorial Association here on Saturday. 
 
 "Lincoln would have tolerated no class legislation in a democracy," 
 .said Mr. Hammond. "He refused to admit a class distinction between 
 Capital and Labor. He regarded Capital and Labor as a mixed, not a 
 distinct class, and he said, 'No principle is disturbed by existence of this 
 mixed class.'" 
 
 Citing a speech by Lincoln at New Haven, in March, 1860, Mr. Ham- 
 mond said the Lincoln industrial faith was the "square deal" of Theodore 
 Roosevelt, "and while in one speech he would sound a note of warning 
 to greedy capitalists, in the next he would admonish communistic ten- 
 dencies on the part of Labor." 
 
 Charles W. Eliot 
 
 The distinguished ex-president of Harvard is quoted in "The Square 
 Deal" of April, 1910, as saying "The closed shop, the joint agreement 
 including the closed shop, the boycott, and the union label, are restrictions 
 on individual liberty too great to be endured' by a democratic people." 
 
 James R. Day 
 
 The Chancellor of Syracuse University, writing in the New 
 York Times of January 2, 1921, says: 
 
 "The workingman should abandon the strike, whether the law 
 commands it or not. It is uncivilized and barbarous. It works against 
 higher wages. The menace of it is figured into the cost of every con- 
 tract. That figures it out of wages." 
 
 "True Americans will work together for good citizenship, good busi- 
 ness, good wages and good fellowship." 
 
 "One of the great crimes of this country is to create classes among 
 
VIEWS OF PROMINENT AMERICANS 215 
 
 the quiet working people by setting up conditions each against the other 
 as an arbitrary plan out of which one prospers and the other suffers." 
 
 Cardinal Gibbons 
 
 James Cardinal Gibbons is quoted in Pamphlet No. i, the 
 National Association of Manufacturers, as follows: 
 
 "The right of a non-union laborer to make his own contract freely, 
 and perform it without hindrance, is so essential to civil liberty that it 
 must be defended by the whole power of the government." 
 
 Dr. Lyman Abbott 
 
 The editor of The Outlook is quoted in Pamphlet No. I of 
 the National Association of Manufacturers as saying: 
 
 "If any section of society endeavors to prevent any man -from 
 working and enjoying the product of his work, that section of society 
 is unjust. If any organization undertakes to prevent any man from 
 working, when he will, where he will, and at what wages he will, that 
 organization violates the essential rights of labor." 
 
 Bishop McCabe 
 
 Bishop McCabe (Methodist) is quoted in Pamphlet No. I 
 of the National Association of Manufacturers as saying: 
 
 "I want to state the attitude of the Church, and this statement is 
 official. We are opposed to having a small percentage of laboring men 
 run the entire laboring class in a high-handed and authoritative manner. 
 * * * 
 
 "It is an imposition for a few men to say 'join our union or you 
 cannot work !' It is an imposition to refuse to allow men to work as thy 
 will if they work honestly and earn their livelihood by honest sweat. As 
 now constituted, labor unions cannot long stand. Either they must reform 
 themselves or they will cease to exist." 
 
 Archbishop Ireland 
 
 The late Archbishop Ireland is quoted as follows in Pamph- 
 let No. I of the National Association of Manufacturers: 
 
 "They who cease to work must in no way interfere with the liberty 
 of others who may wish to work. The personal freedom of the indi- 
 vidual citizen is the mos f t sacred and precious inheritance of America. 
 
 "Labor unions must be on their guard against serious evils threaten- 
 ng them. They cannot be tolerated if they interfere with the general 
 iberty of non-union men who have a right to work in or outside of unions 
 is they please. Public opinion and public law will and must protect this 
 iberty. 
 
 "It is wrong in the labor unions to limit the output of work on the 
 >art of its members. The members themselves are injured. They are 
 educed to a dead level of inferiority." 
 
216 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Bishop Quayle 
 
 In these days when prominent men in the church and schoo! 
 are speaking and writing on industrial subjects, often without 
 close acquaintance with them, it is good to read the following 
 extract from a letter Bishop Wm. A. Quayle of the Centenan 
 Conservation Committee of the Methodist Church wrote to th< 
 President of the American Federation of Labor. Quoted in ttu 
 Omaha Open Shop) : 
 
 "I believe that under the Declaration of Independence and under th( 
 Constitution of the United States, it is absolutely illegitimate for any mai 
 or group of men to call any other American citizen a scab because he doe; 
 not belong to their group or organization. I hold that that must cease i 
 America is to remain a republic. I hold that the laboring man constitute: 
 all who labor, and that the words 'laboring class' to which all honorabl* 
 Americans belong, must not be applied to a very small minority of th< 
 laboring people, to the exclusion of the great multitude of laboring people 
 There must be in America an absolutely open door to any man who want, 
 to work to get it without being anything more than an American citizen 
 * * * 
 
 "I am acquainted with the declarations that organized labor has mad< 
 and have kept posted in them all these years, but am more concerned ii 
 what organized labor does than what organized labor says, for in thi 
 business deeds speak louder than words." 
 
 Governor Parker 
 
 Governor John W. Parker, of Louisiana, is quoted as fol 
 lows in the La Grange, Georgia, Reporter, July 16, 1920: 
 
 "I am absolutely the Governor of all the people; I don't recogniz 
 under the law, the right of union labor or any other labor to dictate wh< 
 shall be and who shall not be employed on public works." 
 
 Governor Goodrich 
 
 Governor Goodrich, of Indiana, is quoted as follows in th 
 Omaha Open Shop, of October 15, 1920: 
 
 "The man who would subject the national life and all of its inter 
 ests to the will of his group is an unrighteous and disloyal citizen." 
 
 Miles Poindexter 
 
 United States Senator Poindexter writes as follows in th 
 Outlook: 
 
 Labor cannot be free "if a laboring man can be compelled, by bein; 
 denied work, to submit himself to the control of the unions." 
 
VIEWS OF PROMINENT AMERICANS 217 
 
 Herbert Hoover 
 
 Before the Labor Committee of the United States Senate Mr. 
 Hoover said: 
 
 VThe principle of individual freedom requires the open shop.'^j 
 Calvin Coolidge 
 
 Vice-President Calvin Coolidge in his 1920 speech of accept- 
 ing the nomination said : 
 
 "The Government of the United States * * * has been and intends 
 to be a nation devoted to the acts of peace. Fundamentally considered, 
 its abiding purpose has been the recognition of the rights and the develop- 
 ment of the individual. 
 
 "Conscious that our resources have now reached a point where there 
 is an abundance for all, we are determined that no imposition shall here- 
 after restrain the worthy from their heritage." 
 
 Warren G. Harding 
 
 "The human element conies first, and I want the employers in indus- 
 try to understand the aspirations, the convictions, the yearnings of the 
 millions of American wage-earners, and I want the wage-earners to under- 
 stand the problems, the anxieties, the obligations of management and 
 capital, and all of them must understand their relationship to the people 
 and their obligation to the republic. Out of this understanding will come 
 the unanimous committal to economic justice, and in economic justice lies 
 that social justice which is the highest essential to human happiness." 
 
 William Howard Taft 
 
 Mr. Taft writes as follows in the Philadelphia Ledger of 
 January 22, 1921 : 
 
 "There are many cities and towns whose progress and welfare have 
 been retarded and injured by the tyranny of local trades unions who have 
 been strong enough to stop building and other improvements by their 
 exorbitant demands, not only as to wages, but also as to hours and other 
 terms. They have been able to defeat any attempt to bring in non-union 
 men, either to take the place of or to supplement union labor. * * * 
 The outrage perpetrated upon the entire community by Brindell and his 
 associates in which some employers seem to have connived, cannot be too 
 strongly condemned. Its direct effect has been so to decrease the con- 
 struction as to keep up the rents everywhere and, indeed, to make it well 
 nigh impossible to furnish decent shelter for the poor. 
 
 "With a movement which has for its object the abolition of such 
 a perversion of the labor union every disinterested person must deeply 
 sympathize. * * * (The closed shop is lawful) but it is unsocial and 
 should be resisted, if possible, by employers. When the latter unite to 
 fight, they should have the sympathy of all good men, and the public will 
 sustain them in the struggle. A closed non-union shop is just as unsocial 
 as the closed shop of the labor union and deserves no more support or 
 sympathy from good men or from the public than the other. 
 
218 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 "Extremists among employers are very unwise and do not help the 
 public weal. The principle of the combination among workmen is indis- 
 pensable to their welfare and their protection against the tyranny of 
 employers. That they often abuse the power will not lead to depriving 
 them of it. * * * Now, in that field the closed shop on each side is 
 lawful; the courts will not restrain it, but it is hard, selfish, unsocial and 
 in the end reacts upon the users. Employers and employes should shun 
 it, and come together in the open shop." 
 
 Theodore Roosevelt 
 
 In a message to Congress in 1902, Mr. Roosevelt said: 
 
 "Every employer, every wage-earner, must be guaranteed his liberty 
 and his right to do as he likes with his property or his labor so long as 
 he does not infringe upon the rights of others. It is of highest importance 
 that employer and employe alike should endeavor to appreciate each the 
 viewpoint of the other and the sure disaster that will come upon both 
 in the long run if either grows to take as habitual an attitude of sour 
 hostility and distrust toward the other." 
 
 The Anthracite Coal Strike Commission appointed by 
 President Roosevelt in its award said: 
 
 "No person shall be refused employment, or in any way discriminated 
 against, on account of membership or non-membership in any labor 
 organization, and there shall be no discrimination against, or interference 
 with any employe who is not a member of a labor organization by mem- 
 bers of such organization." 
 
 In a letter of June 14, 1903, Mr. Roosevelt commented on 
 this as follows: 
 
 "I heartily approve of this award and judgment by the Commission 
 appointed by me, which itself included a member of a labor union. This 
 Commission was dealing with labor organizations working for private 
 employers. It is, of course, mere elementary decency to require that all 
 the Government departments shall be handled in accordance with the 
 principle thus clearly and fearlessly enunciated." 
 
LEGAL ASPECTS ; PUBLIC REGULATION 219 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 Legal Aspects; Public Regulation 
 
 (From "Organized Labor in America," by Professor G. H. 
 Groat, of the University of Vermont. Pages 286-290.) 
 
 What shall be said of the legality of the closed shop? If a contract 
 is entered into between an employer and his men agreeing that no one 
 but union labor shall be employed, is that contract valid? There is some 
 basis for a conclusion on this question, though not sufficient to make 
 such conclusion final. 
 
 In a closed-shop contract that led to a trial in the Massachusetts court 
 (Berry vs. Donovan, 74 N. E., 603), it had been definitely agreed that the 
 employer would hire only members of the union in good standing and 
 further that he would not retain in his employ any worker after receiv- 
 ing notice from the union that such worker was objectionable to the 
 union, whether such objection was based on the worker's being in arrears 
 for dues, disobedient to the rules or laws of the union or for any other 
 cause. 
 
 In accordance with this agreement a workman was discharged who 
 had been in his employ for nearly four years. He brought suit for dam- 
 ages on the ground that the agreement had injured him by bringing about 
 his discharge when it would not have occurred otherwise. While the 
 term of employment was not for a fixed time, yet it appeared to the 
 court that the agreement authorized the union "to interfere and deprive 
 any workman of his employment for no reason whatever, in the arbitrary 
 exercise of its power." With these two points in mind the court was of 
 the opinion that "whatever the contracting parties may do if no one but 
 themselves is concerned, it is evident that, as against the workman, a 
 contract of this kind does not of itself justify interference with his employ- 
 ment by a third person who made the contract with his employer." It 
 seemed that the motive was one to injure and so damages were awarded. 
 The decision rested solely upon the fact that the injured person had been 
 in the employment for about four years. What would have been the law 
 of the case if it had been brought by one seeking employment and unable 
 to secure it because of the agreement is a point that is not discussed. 
 
 In the New York courts the question came up in a different form, 
 somewhat more satisfactory for the discussion of the general principles 
 involved. The parties had agreed that no employe should be allowed to 
 work for longer than four weeks without becoming a member of the 
 union. The court argued that public policy and the interests of society 
 favor the utmost freedom in the citizen to pursue his lawful calling or 
 trade. If a combination of working men interfered with the fulfillment 
 of this purpose through contracts with employers, coercing other working 
 men to become members of the organization, such action militates against 
 the principle of public policy which prohibits monopoly and special privi- 
 leges. "It would tend to deprive the public of the services of men in 
 useful employments and capacities. It would impoverish and' crush a citi- 
 zen for no reason connected in the slightest degree with the advancement 
 
220 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 of wages or the maintenance of the rate." Concluding, the court says: 
 "While it may be true that the contract was entered into, on the part of 
 the (employers), with the object of avoiding disputes and conflicts with 
 the workingmen's organization that feature and such an intention cannot 
 aid the defense, nor legalize a plan of compelling workingmen not in affilia, 
 tion with the organization to join it, at the peril of being deprived of 
 their employment and of the means of making a livelihood." (Curran vs. 
 Galen, 46 N. E., 297.) 
 
 Later another case came to the same court. The agreement was a 
 very elaborate one, as will be seen from the following abstract from the 
 opinion of the court (Jacob vs. Cohen, 76 N. E., 6) : "The contract is in 
 substance as follows: The defendants were the party of the first part; 
 their own employers, 'By Barnard Kaplan, their representative and attor- 
 ney in fact/ party of the second part; and the Protective Coat Tailors' and 
 Pressers' Union, Local No. 66, of the United Garment Workers of America 
 a voluntary association organized by the parties of the second part, 
 acting 'through Barnard Kaplan, its secretary/ party of the third part. 
 It consists chiefly of restrictive stipulations against the employers, who 
 agree to employ the persons already in their employment * * * each in his 
 own capacity and for no other work than he was engaged for, during the 
 period of one year. After fixing the number of working hours per week, 
 it was agreed that 'under no circumstances shall work be carried on by 
 the parties of the first and second part at any other hours than herein 
 specified without a written consent of the party of the third part, executed 
 by its duly authorized officer.' It was further agreed 'that the party oi 
 the first part shall not employ any help whatsoever other than those 
 belonging to and who are members of the party of the third part and ir 
 good standing and who conform to the rules and regulations of the 
 said party of the third part; and the said party of the first part shal' 
 cease to employ any one and all those employes who are not in gooc 
 standing and who do not conform to and comply with the rules and regu- 
 lations of said party of the third part, upon being notified to that effec 1 
 by its duly credentialed representatives. The party of the first part 
 hereby agrees to abide by the rules and regulations of the party of tht 
 third part, as known in the trade, and to permit and allow representative; 
 of said party of the third part to enter their shop or shops at any and al 
 hours of the day and night for the purpose of inspection and enforcemen 
 of the terms of this contract, as well as all the rules and regulations hereii 
 referred to. The party of the first part shall not engage any help what- 
 soever, even those who are members of the party of the third part, with- 
 out their first having produced a pass card duly executed and signed b} 
 the authorized business agent of the party of the third part, said card t< 
 show that the bearer thereof is a member in good standing of the part} 
 of the third part and that he has complied with the rules and regulation 
 thereof in force at that time. The party of the first part shall not emplo; 
 more than one helper to every two operators, or one helper to two basters 
 and under no consideration to employ any apprentices.' The parties of th 
 second part also agreed not to employ apprentices and to abide by th< 
 rules and regulations of the party of the third part. 'In the event o 
 
LEGAL ASPECTS; PUBLIC REGULATION 221 
 
 any one of the parties of the second part not remaining and continuing 
 during the entire period of this contract in good standing, or does not in 
 all respects conform with the rules and regulations of the party of the 
 third part, then the party of the first part shall cease to employ such 
 employe whoever he may be * * * That the parties of the second part 
 may quit work during a so-called 'sympathetic strike,' provided no new 
 demands are made by them. Such quitting of work on their part shall in 
 no way affect the validity of this agreement or suspend its operation.' A 
 minimum scale of wages was agreed upon, and finally the party of the 
 first part agreed to deposit and hereby does deposit with the party of the 
 third part a promissory note in the sum of two hundred dollars * * * as 
 security for the faithful performance by the party of the first part of all 
 the covenants and conditions herein contained * * * as liquidated and ascer- 
 tained damages upon the commission of any breach or violation of any of 
 the covenants herein above set forth on the part of the party of the first 
 part * * * ' The only stipulation on the part of the union was that it 
 would 'furnish any help it may have on its application books' which 
 it was to keep for the benefit of the other parties without charge of any 
 kind to any person." 
 
 In this instance the court held that the agreement was not unlawful. 
 It was voluntarily entered into by the employers. If the employers chose 
 to enter into such an agreement they were -free to do so. It seemed to 
 the court that the employers had come to be released with the expecta- 
 tion of profit to themselves. If they regarded it as beneficial to them- 
 selves "does it lie in their mouths now to urge its illegality?" The view 
 of public policy seems to have changed. 'That, incidentally, it might re- 
 sult in the discharge of some of those employed, for failure to come into 
 affiliation with their fellow workmen's organization, or that it might 
 prevent others from being engaged upon the work, is neither something 
 of which the employers may complain, nor something with which public 
 policy is concerned." 
 
 Other cases have been brought to the courts but these do not set 
 forth so clearly the principles involved. In an Illinois case (O'Brien vs. 
 People, 75 N. E., 108), the employers had refused to sign a closed-shop 
 agreement and the employes had gone on strike to compel them to sign. 
 Such an act the courts would not uphold. It was coercive and unlawful, 
 violative of the legal right of the employer, and it was "unjust and 
 oppressive as to those who did not belong to the labor organizations." In 
 Massachusetts an employer had posted a set of open shop rules that were 
 to go into effect at a stated time. (Reynolds vs. Davis, 84 N. E., 457). A 
 strike was called to prevent the rules being put into effect. The legality of 
 such a strike was questioned before the court. To the court the purpose 
 seemed to be to close the shop arbitrarily to all workmen not members of 
 the union, "not because such workmen were personally objectionable in 
 any particular, nor because there was not work enough for all the mem- 
 bers of the union if non-union men were employed, but to compel all 
 workmen to join the union for the purpose of creating a monopoly in the 
 labor market, whereby to be able to contend successfully with employers 
 whenever a controversy should arise." A strike for such a purpose "would 
 
222 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 not be justifiable on principles of competition, either as against non-union 
 workmen or as against the employer, but would be unlawful." 
 
 For reasons other than the principles involved in the closed-shop 
 contract, it may be unlawful to form an agreement that will result in 
 the discharge of workmen already employed at the time of the making 
 of the agreement. It may be the basis for damages. Also it appears that 
 a strike to compel the adoption of a closed-shop agreement may be unlaw- 
 ful. That involves the more general question of the legality of strikes, 
 whatever may be their purpose. That topic has been discussed in the 
 chapter on Strikes. In the last case referred to, it appears further that 
 the question* of competition and monopoly are not foreign to this dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 The judicial attitude, then, is not settled into agreement. Of course, 
 violence and intimidation will, if used by one of the parties to secure 
 the agreement, free the other from the binding force of the contract. 
 There is uniformity on that point worked out through channels and applic- 
 able in all cases. But coercion aside, there remains the uncertainty as to 
 how the courts will view a contract of this kind. It may come within the 
 right o? the contracting parties so long as the agreement is entered into 
 voluntarily. It may, on the other hand, be viewed as a monopoly against 
 which even the freedom of contract will not stand. 
 
 Public Closed Shop Contracts 
 
 Such contracts are held void by the courts generally on 
 several grounds. The chief ground is that such contracts are in 
 the nature of class legislation; that a public body representing 
 all the people has no right to discriminate between different classes 
 in the bestowal of public benefits or patronage. 
 
 A few of the cases supporting this contention are : 
 
 Lewis vs. Board of Education, n Detroit Legal News, 840. 
 
 Adams, v s. Brenan, 177 Illinois, 194. 
 
 Holden vs. City of Alton, 179 Illinois, 318. 
 
 City of Atlanta vs. Stein, in Georgia, 789. 
 
 Marshall and Bruce Co. vs. City of Nashville, 71 S. W., 815. 
 
 The Supreme Court of Michigan in the first case listed 
 quoted with approval the following utterances of the Supreme 
 Court of Illinois : 
 
 The question is whether the Board of Education has a right to enter 
 into a combination with such an organization for the expenditure of 
 taxpayers' money for the benefits of members of the organization and to 
 exclude any portion of the citizens following lawful trades and occupa- 
 tions from the right to labor. It has no such rights. 
 
 The authorities are unanimous to the effect that the Gov- 
 ernment in awarding public contracts has no right to discriminate 
 against any section of workers, since such discrimination is 
 against public policy and unlawful. 
 
LEGAL ASPECTS; PUBLIC REGULATION 223 
 
 Some Illegal Strikes 
 
 (Testimony of Mr. Gilbert E. Roe, prominent New York 
 attorney who has represented strikers in many cases, before the 
 Industrial Relations Commission, May 10, 1915. See pages 10484 
 and 10485 of testimony.) 
 
 COMMISSIONER WEINSTOCK: I see. Well, that is a new point of view 
 to me. I was under the impression that a strike was not illegal any- 
 where; that what became illegal was an attempt to keep other men 
 from taking the strikers' places; and that every man either individually 
 or collectively has a right to quit work either collectively or individually, 
 but has no right to prevent other men from taking the jobs if other men 
 wanted to take their places. 
 
 MR. ROE: No; a strike the courts declare that strikes may be 
 unlawful for two reasons. One is the object sought to be accomplished, 
 and the other is the method. Now, let me give you, if you please, a 
 list of the instances in which strikes have been held to be unlawful. I 
 will not burden you with the cases, but there are scores' of cases on each 
 of these propositions. 
 
 A sympathetic strike where the strikers do not seek direct benefits 
 for themselves is illegal. That is the doctrine applicable particularly 
 to Massachusetts. 
 
 / A strike to interrupt interstate commerce is illegal. 
 
 A combination of railway employes to tie up interstate commerce 
 by a strike offended the Sherman anti-trust law. 
 
 A strike to compel an employer to operate a closed shop is illegal. 
 
 A strike to prevent the employment of certain workmen is illegal. 
 That is the very point you mention. 
 
 A- strike to bring about the employment of union men exclusively 
 throughout any considerable industry in any community is illegal. 
 
 A strike to prevent a railway from hauling Pullman cars is illegal. 
 
 A strike to prevent a railway from handling the cars of a connect- 
 ing railroad is illegal. 
 
 A strike against a manufacturer because he does work for a fellow 
 manufacturer who is tied up with a strike is illegal. 
 
 A strike to extort money is illegal. 
 
 Where a strike is illegal the payment of strike benefits may be 
 enjoined. 
 
 Of course in case of an injunction issued against a strike to prevent 
 the hauling of cars striking is illegal. 
 
 Strikes to compel an employer to give up his business relations with 
 another employer or to cease patronizing another employer are illegal. 
 
 Now, these are specific instances in which the courts have held that 
 strikes are illegal. 
 
 COMMISSIONER LENNON: Well, are there not other, perhaps more 
 numerous, instances in which the courts have held strikes were not illegal ? 
 
 MR. ROE: Well, there are many instances in which the courts 
 have held that a strike was not illegal. 
 
224 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 Responsibility of Unions for Contract Breaking 
 As pointed out before, these monopolistic organizations are 
 not financially responsible for violations of contracts duly made, 
 or for damages caused during labor disputes. They have many 
 times, when suit for damages was brought, simply given the 
 answer that as they have not chosen to incorporate they cannot 
 be held legally responsible for damages arising from their actions. 
 Such a condition is conducive neither to efficiency nor har- 
 mony in industry, two attributes with which the public is vitally 
 concerned. About one hundred years ago corporations, associa- 
 tions of individuals for purposes of business, began to assume 
 prominence. Since 1870 both states and national governments 
 have placed restrictions upon these associations, restrictions 
 designed to benefit the members or stockholders, other associa- 
 tions, and the general public. Their manner of organization and 
 methods of business are carefully regulated by law. Yet the 
 labor organizations which sponsor the closed shop bitterly oppose 
 any and all efforts to regulate their monopoly and actions, 
 although they have millions of members and millions of dollars, 
 their acts affecting the general public for good or ill as much 
 certainly as any business aggregation has ever done or has ever 
 threatened to do. If the public has a right to regulate business 
 and make it conform to certain standards, has it not the same 
 right to regulate combinations of labor? 
 
 Should Unions Be Made Responsible? 
 
 (Testimony of James A. Emery, General Counsel for the 
 National Association of Manufacturers, before the Industrial 
 Relations Commission, May 18, 1915. Page 10820.) 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH : What is your attitude toward the existing legal 
 liability of trades unions, for acts committed as organizations? First, 
 should they be liable; and if they should, then how can it thus be 
 enforced that liability? That would involve the question as to whether 
 or not they should be incorporated, and all that you have heard? 
 
 MR. EMERY : Yes. I believe that every organization should be liable 
 for its acts. It is axiomatic to say that there should be no power without 
 corresponding responsibility, no matter who exercises it or what class in 
 society exercises it. 
 
 The present state of the law is of course that voluntary associations 
 cannot be sued in state courts where they have not been given legal person- 
 ality for the purpose of suit. Neither can they sue. On the other hand, 
 the individual members of the labor organization become liable for the 
 acts of their members within the scope of their employment. That state 
 of the law of course results in this that a few individuals who have been 
 
LEGAL ASPECTS; PUBLIC REGULATION 225 
 
 fortunate enough or provident or frugal enough to get some of this 
 world's goods and make a saving, become responsible, as a matter of law, 
 for the more reckless or criminal of their fellow members the condition 
 of course which they recognize in associating themselves with them. 
 Perhaps, socially speaking, it may have the effect of causing the more 
 responsible in the material sense of the word of an organization to exert 
 their influence more in the conduct of affairs in the organization; but it 
 has never seemed to me an entirely just matter, but one thing that is 
 difficult to avoid because of the lack of pecuniary responsibility of those 
 here composing the labor organizations. 
 
 The incorporation of trades unions is a matter upon which I must 
 confess I have had a divided opinion because of the naked difficulty of 
 the incorporation the difficulty of limiting the liability with due regard 
 for the rights of those who may be injured by the acts of the combination. 
 It is easy to incorporate them to such a point that, not having of course 
 capital stock or share capital they might dispose of their funds in such a 
 manner that a suit is vain. And predicting my conclusion on the proposi- 
 tion that no organization should be permitted to exert power that will not 
 be responsible for the injury that it may do others when the exertion 
 of that power is injurious, it seems to me that an incorporation in the 
 ordinary acceptance of the term "incorporate" is not sufficient; but that the 
 state should probably give labor organizations a legal status I am speak- 
 ing of the organization as such irrespective of its members so that it 
 can sue and be sued as voluntary associations may be and assume such 
 control or provide for such control of its funds as will make it responsible 
 within its limit for such injuries as it does. I say this with respect to 
 labor organizations, but it has reference also to organizations of employers, 
 or to any organization that can be party to labor disputes resulting in 
 injury to others. I do not care whether it is the immediate parties to the 
 dispute, or the innocent bystander that gets shot in the course of the 
 conflict, he is entitled to reparation for that injury. 
 
 (Excerpts from testimony before the Industrial Relations 
 Commission, May 17, 1915, of Mr. Walter Drew, Counsel for 
 the National Erectors' Association.) 
 
 Much has been said about the obsolete doctrines of the common 
 law in their relation to the labor movement, and also about the failure of 
 our courts to keep pace with the progressive development of modern social 
 and industrial thought. Yet what principle of our industrial law can be 
 considered as so unfitted to our present industrial system, so obsolete from 
 every standpoint of social and industrial ethics at the present time, as this 
 same ancient rule that a voluntary association, no matter what its power 
 or its resources or its aims and purposes, or its actual invasion of the 
 rights of society, shall be permitted to do what injury it pleases, lawfully 
 or unlawfully, without any legal responsibility? In the old days the 
 principles of the law of conspiracy were so strict and so rigidly enforced 
 that any combination for trade purposes of either masters or workmen 
 was held illegal and even criminal. No necessity, therefore, existed for 
 the possession by third parties of any right of action against industrial 
 associations. Now, with the old common law of conspiracy so modified 
 
226 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 as to permit the widest latitude in combination, and with the great increase 
 in the power of industrial organizations, with consequent greater ability 
 to inflict injury, distinctly new conditions have come about and a need 
 has been created on the part of the rest of society for protection which 
 did not before exist in such character or degree. 
 
 The establishment of the trade-union upon a proper basis of legal 
 responsibility is a simple matter. It could be accomplished either by incor- 
 poration of the union through its own initiative under the Federal or 
 State Acts permitting such incorporation, or* it could be accomplished by 
 the passage of laws permitting actions for damages for either tort or 
 breach of contract to be brought against trade organizations in their 
 own names, and making any judgment secured collectible out of the funds 
 of the association. In a few states statutes permitting voluntary associa- 
 tions to sue and be sued in the association name have been enacted, but 
 it is very questionable if under such statutes any action is possible except 
 against an association domiciled in a particular state. Whether a national 
 organization extending ever many states could be held under such a local 
 statute is exceedingly doubtful, and it is interesting to note that the 
 headquarters of different national unions are located in states where no 
 such statutes exist. 
 
 Union Objections to Responsibility Analyzed 
 
 MR. DREW: So far as present statute law is concerned, therefore, it 
 remains the general fact that trade-unions are practically immune from 
 legal responsibility in this country. 
 
 Of such suggestions, Mr. Gompers, in his report as president to the 
 convention of the American Federation of Labor in November, 1904, 
 says : "We still frequently hear the proposition urged for the incorpora- 
 tion of trade-unions, the evident purpose of many advocates being honor- 
 able and sympathetic, notwithstanding how unwise and injurious the 
 results would unquestionably be to labor. Others, again, who advocate 
 and insist upon the incorporation of the trade-unions know full well the 
 purpose they have in view and the schemes they could then hatch to 
 harass organized labor still more with suits at law, regardless of the flimsi- 
 ness of the cause or the pretext for civil suits. They would not only 
 divert our attention from the effort at economic improvement to a defense 
 against every species of civil suits brought by our opponents against any 
 officers of organized labor, but they would make every effort 'under the 
 forms of law' to mulct our unions in damages for supposed injurious 
 results from trade-union action." 
 
 Mr. Gompers then points out that the chief argument for union 
 incorporation is that it would bring about equality of responsibility 
 between the union and the employers in cases of breach of contract, and 
 he insists that such a claim has no foundation, because, as a matter of fact, 
 employers, in spite of their many violations of trade agreements, have 
 not been held in damages for such violations. In the hearing before this 
 commission at New York, Mr. Gompers reaffirmed his opposition to any 
 incorporation of the unions, his reason there being that legal responsi- 
 bility on the part of the union would be made use of by the employer to 
 harass and to oppress with unfounded suits. 
 
LEGAL ASPECTS; PUBLIC REGULATION 227 
 
 Such reasons for preserving a condition of legal irresponsibility are, 
 of course, no reasons at all. Equally well might it be said that no action 
 for damages should exist against any of us because, forsooth, our enemies 
 may subject us to unwarranted litigation. Neither is it true that the 
 chief reason for trade-union responsibility is to secure equality with the 
 employer in making of contracts. That of course is one reason and 
 a most important one, and it would seem that no one more than the unions 
 themselves should be interested in taking every step possible to put 
 organized labor in the position of being able to make a business contract 
 to which there should be two responsible contracting parties and the 
 basis of which should be mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual 
 responsibility. Such condition would do more than any other one thing 
 I can think of to extend collective bargaining and to place it upon an 
 employer in the making of contracts. That, of course, is one reason, and 
 stable and firm foundation. 
 
 But aside from all questions of contract, why, in all fairness, should 
 not a labor organization be responsible in damages to others whose 
 rights it unlawfully invades? It has been suggested during the hearing 
 of this Commission that civil responsibility on the part of unions would 
 interfere with their democratic development, the inference being that the 
 working out of the democratic principle in a trade-union is too important 
 to be jeopardized by any sifch harsh principle as legal responsibility to the 
 other members of society. The application of such a principle to an 
 industrial organization, the basic essentials of which should be economic 
 and not political, is scarcely deserving discussion; yet even from the 
 standpoint and in the spirit such suggestion is advanced it falls before the 
 first commonplace observation. Our cities are organized and adminis- 
 tered on a democratic basis. In them society at large is working out the 
 experiment of democracy, yet for that reason no immunity is granted 
 the city from liability on its bond or its contracts; and if a city unlaw- 
 fully infringes your rights or mine, we can maintain an action at law 
 and recover damages therefor. Why, then, should not a labor organization, 
 which is organized for the primary purpose of promoting the interests 
 of its members as opposed to the interests of other classes of society, be 
 legally responsible for its conduct, and is not such absence of responsi- 
 bility one of the most retarding influences in the growth and development 
 of the union towards its true and proper place as a permanent industrial 
 institution? 
 
 The Unions and the Law 
 
 (Statements made by closed shop "labor" leaders as to their 
 attitude towards obeying state and national laws, and judicial 
 decisions based upon these laws. No comment is needed.) 
 
 vSaid Mr. John Mitchell, vice-president of the American 
 Federation of Labor, at an annual meeting of the National Civic 
 Federation : 
 
 I wish to say for myself, and I yield to no one living in loyalty to 
 this country, that if. a judge were to enjoin me from doing something 
 that I had a legal, a Constitutional, and a moral right to do, that I would 
 violate the injunction. I shall, as one American, preserve my liberty 
 
228 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 and the liberties of my people, even against the usurpation of the Federal 
 judiciary. 
 
 The President of the American Federation of Labor, in con- 
 nection with the injunction sought in the Bucks Stove and Range 
 case, in a Labor Day speech at the Jamestown Exposition, said: 
 
 I desire to be clearly understood that when any court undertakes 
 without warrant of law by the injunction process to deprive me of my 
 personal rights and my personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution, 
 I shall have no hesitancy in asserting and exercising those rights. 
 
 After the injunction was issued, Mr. Gompers, writing in the 
 Federatiomst, said as to the rights of laboring men: 
 
 They have a lawful right to do as they wish, all the Van Cleaves, 
 all the injunctions, all the fool or vicious opponents to the contrary not- 
 withstanding. * * * Go to with your injunctions. 
 
 After the injunction was issued against the strike of the coal 
 miners in the fall of 1919, the Executive Committee of the 
 Federation of Labor issued a bitter statement in criticism of the 
 action of the Government, which concluded: 
 
 By all the facts in the case the miners' strike is justifiable. We 
 endorse it. We pledge to the miners the full support of the American 
 Federation of Labor and appeal to the workers and the citizenship of 
 our country to give like endorsement to the men engaged in this 
 momentous struggle. 
 
 The President of the American Federation* of Labor, in the 
 leading editorial in the February, 1921, American Federatiomst, 
 declares : 
 
 We cannot admit that the (United States Supreme) Court has a 
 right to define those rights (of a labor union). 
 
 Representatives of 109 national and international unions 
 affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, made public 
 in Washington, February 23, 1921, a "Bill of Rights." This 
 demanded : 
 
 Removal by Congress of the usurped power of courts to declare 
 unconstitutional laws enacted by Congress. 
 
 It was declared that labor unions must refuse to recognize or 
 abide by the terms of injunctions which in their opinion seek to 
 prohibit the doing of acts which they have a' lawful and guaran- 
 teed right to do or compel acts they have the same right to refuse 
 to do. 
 
 This is the only immediate course through which labor can find 
 relief and this course it proposes to pursue * * * be the consequences 
 what they may. 
 
LEGAL ASPECTS; PUBLIC REGULATION 229 
 
 Attitude of Courts Towards Labor 
 
 (Views of Mr. Daniel Davenport, Counsel for the American 
 Anti-Boycott Association, expressed before the Industrial Rela- 
 tions Commission, May 15, 1915. Pages 10704-10706 of the 
 testimony.) 
 
 Now, something has been said which would indicate that in the opinion 
 of some, and, I think, from what I saw in the newspapers it was 
 expressed by the distinguished lawyer, notable Justice Clark, of the 
 Supreme Court of North Carolina, and by Mr. Gregory, if he was 
 properly reported, that the attitude of the courts toward labor, and 
 toward organized labor particularly, is unjust. Now, I thought that I 
 would call attention to the real facts about the matter. They are blanket 
 charges; they are generalities. What specific case do they name as 
 indicative of that? Take the Supreme Court of the United States, to 
 which reference was made. I want to call the attention of the com- 
 mission to the fact that in the first place the decisions of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States as established absolutely protect the rights 
 of all labor, in the first place, and, in the second, that the rights of 
 organized labor are supported and sustained by that body, and on 
 that point, I want to call the attention of the commission to one 
 or two authorities, quotations from the decisions of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States ; and the first is in the case of Live 
 Stock Association against in the slaughterhouse cases^ in 83 U. S., 
 page 36: "It is one of the privileges of every American citizen to 
 adopt and follow such lawful industrial pursuits, not injurious to the 
 community, as he may see fit, without unreasonable regulation or 
 molestation, and without being restricted by any of those unjust, oppres- 
 sive, and odious monopolies or exclusive privileges which have been con- 
 demned by all free governments. There is no more sacred right of /-< 
 citizenship than the right to pursue unmolested a lawful employment 
 in a lawful manner. It is nothing more nor less than the sacred right 
 of labor." 
 
 That was by Mr. Justice Field, and in the same volume, 83 U. S., 
 page 366, it was said by Mr. Justice Miller: 
 
 "For the preservation, exercise, and enjoyment of these rights the 
 individual citizen as a necessity must be left free to adopt such calling, 
 profession, or trade as may seem to him most conducive to that end. I 
 Without this right he can not be a free man. This right to choose one's I t 
 calling is an essential part of that liberty which it is the object to pro- / 
 tect; and a calling when chosen is a man's property and right. Liberty 
 and property are not protected where these rights are arbitrarily 
 assailed." 
 
 And in the case of the Butchers' Union vs. Crescent City, in U. S., 
 757, the court says: 
 
 "The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and 
 pursuits which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in 
 all communities from time immemorial, must therefore, be free in this 
 country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue 
 them without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all 
 
230 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege 
 of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that free- 
 dom which they claim as their birthright." 
 
 Now, so much for the general attitude, the attitude of the Supreme 
 Court, toward the right of labor in general. 
 
 Now, in regard to organized labor. Has it been suggested by any- 
 one that there is any decision of the Supreme Court that is antagon- 
 istic to that right? On the contrary, as I pointed out yesterday, in the 
 first place, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided, in the 
 case of Adair against the United States, 208 U. S., that it is beyond the 
 power of Congress to interfere with rights of men to form unions in 
 interstate trade. That power to regulate interstate trade did riot em- 
 brace the right to say whether or not a man shall or shall not belong to 
 a union. But they have gone further. Has it not been for years the 
 contention of labor that it is in the power of the legislatures of the 
 States and Congress to exempt labor unions from the operation of these 
 laws which prohibit, as against the producer and seller and dealer in 
 commodities. That contention of the Supreme Court is upheld in the 
 case of Coppage vs. Kansas in the 236 U. S. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: You mean an organization for profit 
 or not for profit? 
 
 MR. DAVENPORT: No, sir; between the vendors for service and the 
 vendor of the product of their service. That distinction is written into 
 the law of this country, and in the institutions of this country, by the 
 action of the Supreme Court only last winter. So much for that. 
 
 Unions and Boycotts 
 
 Now, in the next place, no decision of the Supreme Court has been 
 made in regard to the right to boycott that has not been made at the 
 instance of the labor unions. The first decision of any consequence in 
 this country to the effect that a boycott was not only illegal but criminal 
 and heinously criminal was made by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States upon the demand and upon the request of the labor unions. That 
 principle was written into the law, not upon the argument of any repre- 
 sentative of any plutocrat, but upon the representation and arguments 
 of the labor unions, and when any man, be he the former president of 
 the American Bar Association or the Justice of the Supreme Court of 
 North Carolina, comes here and tells you that the decisions of tfie 
 Supreme Court as to the legality or illegality of boycotts by labor unions 
 is an indication of any partiality on the part of the courts to the 
 employers, he is utterly at sea and ignorant in regard to the history of 
 the law. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: Have you in mind the case you referred 
 to where the labor asked the Supreme Court 
 
 MR. DAVENPORT: The case of Callan vs. Wilson, 137 U. S. 
 
 COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: What was the organization? 
 
 MR. DAVENPORT: The Knights of Labor and the musicians' union. 
 
 CHAIRMAN WALSH: You cited that yesterday?, 
 
 MR. DAVENPORT: And it was done on the demand of Mr. Ralston, 
 who represented those men, that such an offense as that was no petty 
 
LEGAL ASPECTS; PUBLIC REGULATION 231 
 
 offense for which a man could be held without a jury, but a most heinous 
 crime against society, to boycott, and the Supreme Court accepted his argu- 
 ment, and adopted his principle, and wrote it into the jurisprudence of the 
 United States, not upon the demand of any employer, but upon the demand 
 of the unions, just and proper. But whenever we hear it said that the 
 rights of labor are invaded by the courts, either the Supreme Court 
 or any inferior court, when they hold men there responsible either in 
 damages or criminally, or enjoin them for boycotting, remember that was 
 obtained by the unions, and for the protection of the unions against the 
 action of the Government. 
 
 Well, now, that is the other case. Why, in my time there have 
 been three noted cases in the Supreme Court of the United States bear- 
 ing upon these matters; the first was the case in re Debs, 158 U. S., 
 which followed along after, about 30 volumes later than the case to which 
 I refer. The second is the great case of Loewe vs. Lawler, 208 U. S., 
 and the case of Gompers vs. The United States. 
 
 Now, I want to call the attention of this commission to the fact that 
 every principle laid down in the Debs case has been approved of and 
 has been clamored for by the labor unions and by their action they have 
 secured the enactment of legislation which has crystallized in the form 
 of a statute every proposition laid down in that case. 
 
 Now, of course, we all know how that case originated. The United 
 States Government went into a United States court of equity and secured 
 an injunction against the American Railway Union, and other unions, 
 against obstructing the commerce and the passage of the mails by these 
 gentlemen. The injunction was granted, and Mr. Debs violated it, and 
 Mr. Debs was brought up in court to show cause why he should not 
 be punished for contempt, for violating the injunction which had been 
 issued by Chief Justice Fuller. On the trial he made the claim that he 
 was constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury, and that claim was over- 
 ruled. He claimed further that injunction was void because it interfered 
 with personal rights of the employes. He claimed, also, that it was 
 the acts, that they sought to enjoin, were criminal acts, and that an injunc- 
 tion for that purpose was prohibited for constitutional reasons. That 
 case went to the Supreme Court, and the court held these things : First, 
 that the injunction was properly issued; a familiar exercise of equity 
 power. Second, that when charged with a violation of it Mr. Debs was 
 not entitled constitutionally to trial by jury. The third was that the 
 acts which he did, either they were crimes for which he was tried, 
 and he was not entitled to a trial by jury. Every principle that is there 
 established is written down literally in the Clayton bill, at the request 
 and at the demand of the labor unions. 
 
 Can the Government Discriminate? 
 
 In view of the well-known friendly and sympathetic rela- 
 tions between the national administration and organized labor 
 during war time, the following official utterances are of especial 
 significance : 
 
 Order of Mr. McAdoo, Director General of Railroads: "No dis- 
 
232 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 crimination will be made in the employment, retention, or conditions of 
 employment, of employes because of membership or non-membership in 
 labor organizations." 
 
 Provision in Awards of the Shipyard Labor Adjustment Board: "The 
 Board will not tolerate any discrimination either on the part of employers 
 or employes between union and non-union men." 
 
 Statement in Principles of the National War Labor Board : "In estab- 
 lishments where union and non-union men now work together and the 
 employer meets only with employes or representatives engaged in such 
 establishments, the continuance of such conditions shall not be deemed 
 a grievance." 
 
 Ex-President Taft, in a public statement, explaining the above prin- 
 ciple, said: "If the employer in an open shop insists on the so-called 
 family arrangement by which he deals only with his employes or a com- 
 mittee elected from them, it shall be no grievance if he declines to deal 
 with a delegate of the union not his employe. So, too, employment of non- 
 union men in an open shop cannot be a grievance of union employes in 
 that shop." 
 
 Open Shop Laws Opposed 
 
 The December, 1920, Bulletin of the Duluth, Minnesota 
 Citizens' Alliance, decries attempts to establish the open shop by 
 legislation. It declares : 
 
 A perfect industrial system, or even an approach to it, will never 
 be established through the coercive power of law. That most desirable 
 end, industrial peace and industrial prosperity, will come when the one 
 of these two antagonistic systems has demonstrated, through actual test 
 and experience, that it is superior to the other. 
 
 The enactment of a law will not alone insure its success ; that depends 
 upon a widespread recognition of its necessity among the people, and as 
 the result of mature and long considered deliberation. 
 
 The proper solution of these important questions will never be 
 arrived at through the remedies proposed by politicians and statesmen, 
 but will be obtained as the result of a common consent, based upon 
 actual experience, as worked out in the factory, shop, and in the 
 general field of industry. 
 
 The advocates of the "open shop" policy believe that it is beneficent, 
 and they believe that the "closed shop" policy is pernicious, but, unless 
 we have mistaken the temper of those who support it, they will stand 
 almost to a man in opposition to any attempt to force it upon the country 
 by law. 
 
 One of the most vicious tendencies in our national life is the disposi- 
 tion to attempt to settle and finally dispose of all the ills from which 
 humanity is suffering by legislation. 
 
 If the open shop is right in principle, it needs no law to bolster it 
 up; it will demonstrate its own necessity, its own efficacy. 
 
TYPICAL DEBATERS' ARGUMENTS 233 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 Typical Debaters' Arguments 
 
 Some Hints to Debaters 
 
 Do not resort to tricks or devices. If you have something to say 
 it is not necessary. If you have nothing to talk about you are wasting 
 your own and your hearers' time. 
 
 If you are unable to make your audience forget your voice, gesture, 
 and personality while you are speaking you have failed as a speaker. 
 Your audience should be aware only of the truth you utter. Your object 
 is to instruct and convince. To do so it is not necessary to talk loudly. 
 Artificial devices, studied gestures, etc., attract the attention of the 
 audience, but not to the subject-matter of your discourse. The thought 
 presented should monopolize the auditor's attention. 
 
 Your words should teach and instruct. To do so they must assert. 
 Do not put in so many modifying expressions, such as "in my opinion," 
 "I may be wrong," etc., that your audience doubts your real belief in the 
 principles you uphold. 
 
 Few great speeches ever contain wit or humor. Even Lincoln, the 
 greatest of modern story-tellers, never used humor in any of his half 
 dozen greatest public utterances. The strength of your argument should 
 hold the attention of your audience. When you are wearying your 
 audience so that it is necessary to amuse them it is time to quit. 
 
 Do not waste time. Get to the point. Your time will probably be 
 limited ; make the most of it. Short sentences and Anglo-Saxon words 
 are best. Hammer home by repetition the vital truths you seek to present. 
 If you are proved in error on any point be quick to admit it. 
 
 Speak directly to the audience. See to it especially that the judges 
 can hear you. The temptation to turn to your opponents when answering 
 their arguments is great. The writer of these lines once lost a debate 
 because he did this and the judges could not clearly hear all he said. 
 
 Analyze the problem and prepare an outline before you commence 
 to read extensively. As your knowledge of the problem expands it may 
 be necessary to revise your outline. 
 
 Know the arguments of the opposition; try to have an answer 
 prepared in advance for every argument of theirs of which you can 
 think. Do not waste time talking about points the truth of which has 
 been admitted by your opponents. In every speech try to answer at 
 least one of their points. 
 
 It is not necessary to answer in order your opponent's arguments. 
 If you do so you may find that time is called on you when several, per- 
 haps the most important, have not been touched. Answer only those 
 points which are important. 
 
 Place your reliance upon facts. Do not "denounce," play to the 
 audience, or try to make sentences which sound well but when analyzed 
 mean nothing. Your conflict is with principles, not with personalities. 
 
 Do not fail to point out important arguments you have made which 
 
234 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 the opposition has not attempted to answer or has unsuccessfully attempted 
 to meet. 
 
 Every speech should have a strong close. This can in most cases 
 be prepared in advance. 
 
 Do not have your least experienced and effective speaker give the 
 first speech. The proposition needs to be clearly presented, and the first 
 speaker can do much to obtain a favorable hearing for his colleagues. 
 He should not try to cover the entire field of the argument but should 
 prepare the way for his colleagues. He should define, eliminate irrelevant 
 material, concede what is immaterial to his side of the case, and clearly 
 state the real issues involved. He can usually begin the discussion. 
 
 Prepare a brief and divide the topics to be discussed; let each speaker 
 hold to the topics allotted to him, making his own arguments effective. 
 Every speaker should refer to what his colleagues have already said and 
 show how his own argument strengthens an already strong case. Do not 
 try to cover all the possible points ; cover the fundamental ones well. 
 
 When time is called quit. 
 
 (Extracts from speeches in favor of the Open Shop, deliv- 
 ered by representatives of Northwestern University, in an inter- 
 collegiate debate with Chicago University. The full speeches of 
 both sides are printed in Volume I, of "Intercollegiate Debates," 
 published by Hinds, Noble and Eldredge. Reprinted by permis- 
 sion ; the publishers do not wish to be considered as endorsing in 
 any way either the closed or open shop.) 
 
 The affirmative speaker has told you that every man outside of the 
 union is an injury to every man within the union. This is the plea 
 upon which all trade unions base their demand for the "closed shop." But 
 their contention is far from being true. The acts of the trade union itself 
 repudiate this assertion. The very fact that all trade unions exclude 
 many men from their ranks, is ample proof of the fact that they do not, 
 and need not fear the honest competition of the non-union man. 
 
 But even if this competition were dangerous we would place beside 
 the assertions of the affirmative that famous and eloquent passage in the 
 report of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission : "However irritating it 
 may be to see men enjoy benefits, to the obtaining of which they refuse to 
 contribute, the fact remains that every man has the right to dispose of 
 1 his personal service as he sees fit." 
 
 Not only is the closed shop to be justified for organized labor as a 
 whole, but we must consider its effect upon all parties affected by the 
 agreement. We must take a broader view of the question than has been 
 taken by the gentlemen of the affirmative. We must consider the effects 
 of the "closed shop" upon the non-union man, whom it excludes ; upon the 
 employer whom it antagonizes; upon the public which it would have the 
 power to exploit; and upon those fundamental rights, which are the basis 
 of American government, and which the "closed shop" seems to repudiate. 
 
 We mean to show that this "closed shop" is dangerous ; that violence is 
 the only method of attaining it ; that it is an economic disadvantage ; that it 
 violates the rights of the employer and the individual workman; and that 
 
TYPICAL DEBATERS' ARGUMENTS 235 
 
 it destroys the freedom of contract. This means a sultanic power which 
 under present labor conditions, naturally is, and would be, greatly abused. 
 
 We admit that labor organizations have helped to remedy many indus- 
 trial wrongs; but nevertheless, they contain inherent evils and manifest 
 many dangerous tendencies. These tendencies are matters of common 
 knowledge. It is generally conceded that labor organizations crowd down 
 the best man to the level of the poorest ; that by unduly limiting the num- 
 ber of apprentices, they keep many men from learning a trade; that they 
 have changed peaceful picketing and moral persuasion into intimidation; 
 that they resort to violence and even murder to carry out their designs and 
 pay the fines of members found guilty of criminal assault; and that they 
 place the demands of the union above those of the state, society and reli- 
 gion. Certainly an organization with so many inherent evils cannot, with 
 propriety, claim the right to rule industry. For there is absolutely no as- 
 surance that an organization guilty of the abuse of great power, will not 
 be guilty of far greater abuses, if entrusted with supreme power. For 
 when an employer agrees to hire only members of a trade union he gives 
 his consent, in effect^ to every evil in the makeup of that union. This 
 means a continuation and an aggravation of these evils; for it destroys 
 the possibility of their elimination by an enlightened public opinion. Such 
 an experiment is dangerous, and hence the "closed shop" is unjustifiable. 
 
 The same restriction is true with regard to the industries of this 
 country. The United Garment Workers have so restricted the output of 
 the St. Louis clothing houses that two of the largest firms have been com- 
 pelled to go out of business. And this statement is made upon the author- 
 ity of the official organ of the union itself. This indefensible curtailment 
 of production, which by all laws of logic and precedent, must be greatly 
 aggravated by the "closed shop," is at once disastrous to the employer; 
 demoralizing to the workman himself; and destructive of American com- 
 mercial supremacy. 
 
 The last speaker asserted that unions do not restrict output I hold 
 in my hand a letter from the Kellogg Company, dated yesterday, that 
 states that they have increased their output under "open shop" conditions 
 from forty to fifty per cent, that their men are better satisfied because they 
 receive more wages. To prove to you that the Plumbers restrict output, 
 I cite you the case of a master plumber of Chicago, Mr. Frewin, who 
 by special effort did seven days' work in five hours. To-day in England a 
 mason lays only 400 bricks, whereas he formerly laid 1,000. What do you 
 call that but restriction? When British printing must be done in Hol- 
 land, what do you call that but restriction? The gentleman says that 
 unions in England do not restrict output. Carroll D. Wright says, "I 
 will shortly publish statistics that will show conclusively that unions in 
 England restrict output." The gentleman has told you that the railway 
 unions are "closed shop" institutions, and yet, he admits that only 95 per 
 cent of railway men are in the unions; these are not "closed shop" insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 Now, we are not arguing trade-unionism. Each individual demand of 
 the trade union must be judged on its own merits, and this demand for 
 the "closed shop" we maintain is not justifiable. The gentleman has cited 
 
236 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 cases to show you the success of the "union shop." Success in what 
 particular? For the men in the union? What about the mass of our 
 population that the "union shop" does not help the employer, the non- 
 unionist, and the public at large? He has told you that there are only a 
 few strong unions that refuse applications. Says their national President 
 in Chicago, "The Plumbers in Seattle and Pittsburgh have an initiation 
 fee of $50 for the very purpose of keeping men out of the union." 
 
 They have said that there is no violence of sufficient import to con- 
 demn trade unions, and yet we submit that the teamsters of Chicago, 
 who have a "closed shop" organization of the kind and character which 
 the gentlemen defend, have stopped the ice wagon on the warmest day in 
 July and the coal wagon on the coldest day of January; they have stopped 
 the milk wagon when infant mortality was rising and the hearse on the 
 way to the grave. It needs little logic to show that an institution which 
 makes possible such public outrages should be given absolutely no chance 
 to establish itself. 
 
 There is a simple way by which the union can obtain all the power it 
 needs, and at the same time avoid all the evils of which I have spoken 
 evils which are inseparably connected with the system proposed by the 
 affirmative. Let them eliminate their unreasonable and violent leaders, 
 and put in their places men who can see both sides of the labor problem. 
 Let them eradicate their violent methods and enforce their demands with 
 a decent regard to the rights of others. Let them discontinue their infam- 
 ous policy of restriction of output, and give their employer an honest day's 
 work for an honest day's pay. Let them no longer seek to wrest from 
 the employer the rightful control of his business. Then the labor union 
 will be an unmixed good. Then all men will be glad to treat with its 
 chosen representatives. Then, and then only, has the labor union the 
 right to demand the control of the labor situation. But that control will be 
 theirs by preference of both employer and employe, and not by force of 
 contracts wrung from their employer at the sacrifice of the constitutional 
 rights of both himself and the non-union man. 
 
 College Speeches in Favor of Open Shop 
 
 (Extracts from speeches in favor of the Open Shop, deliv- 
 ered by representatives of Illinois Wesleyan University in an 
 intercollegiate debate with Northwestern College. The full 
 speeches of both sides are printed in Volume III of "Intercollsgi- 
 ate Debates." Reprinted by permission of the publishers, Hinds, 
 Hayden and Eldredge, who do not wish to be considered as 
 endorsing in any way either the closed or open shop.) 
 
 /My second contention is that such a monopoly would be dangerous 
 :o the economic welfare of the country. The paramount evidence in sup- 
 port of this point is to be found in the restriction of output, which has fol- 
 lowed in the trail of the closed shop. In the City of New York, where the 
 closed shop has reached a high state of perfection, the by-laws of the Lath- 
 ers' Union specify a day's work not to exceed 1,600 laths, less than half as 
 much as the same men did before the closed shop policy became effective. 
 
TYPICAL DEBATERS' ARGUMENTS 237 
 
 The Plasterers' Union limited its members to performing less than two- 
 thirds the amount of work that a normal employe could do in an eight- 
 hour day. Union men confess that they are often able to complete their 
 required day's work in four hours. The by-laws of the Brotherhood of 
 Carpenters contain provisions for the punishment by fine or even by ex- 
 pulsion of the members found guilty of doing more than the prescribed 
 work for an eight-hour day. The marble and tile setters of New York, 
 working under highly perfected closed shop conditions, have limited 
 the output of a member of that association to less than one-third of that 
 of a Chicago tile setter and to less than half of that which should be 
 expected. The Stone-cutters' Association and the Stone Traders of New 
 York have entered into an agreement by which it is impossible for stone 
 dealers who are not members of the Stone Traders' Association to either 
 .secure stone or labor of any kind. Similar agreements exist between the 
 umbers' Union and the Employers' Association; the members of the 
 union work only for the Employers' Association and vice versa. This is 
 conclusive evidence both of restriction of output and of unjust discrimina- 
 tion in favor of both the union and the association. 
 
 In conclusion, Honorable Judges, let me say I have shown that the 
 closed shop places in the hands of unionists monopoly control over all 
 labor and consequently over all industry. I have further shown that 
 such a monopoly is dangerous and destructive to the economic welfare of 
 the country, because of the general violence and lawlessness of methods 
 connected with strikes, because of restriction of output, and because of 
 the limitation of membership. In the face of these facts I ask that you deny 
 that the movement of organized labor for the closed shop should receive 
 the support of the American people. 
 
 Now, Honorable Judges, it falls to my lot to advance the negative 
 argument -by showing, first that with the spread of closed shop movement, 
 the life of unionism depends more and more upon limitation of mem- 
 bership; secondly, that such a restriction of membership, when member- 
 ship is the condition of working in an industry as it would be under the 
 closed shop, would be the exploitation of the men excluded by unionism ; 
 and, thirdly, that such an exploitation of one class by another is absolute- 
 ly contradictory to American ideals. 
 
 Honorable Judges, I have established the contention that owing to 
 the large excess of workmen over jobs, closed shop unionism must mean 
 closed unionism. For if the unions should try to embrace all the workers 
 in the organized industries, internal competition for the spoils of employ- 
 ment would rend unionism asunder, having by its own policy coerced into 
 membership that very element which is most dangerous to its life. There- 
 fore, since it will restrict its membership to correspond to the number of 
 jobs at its disposal, it will dislodge over one million American workmen 
 from their chosen occupations, and compel them to secure what work they 
 can in the non-unionized fields. This will only sharpen the competition 
 in these already crowded realms, and in all the struggle ? the low-lived 
 foreign labor will have the greatest advantage. Consequently, under the 
 closed shop, without restriction of membership unionism will perish, and 
 with restriction of membership unionism will not only secure, as my 
 
238 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 colleague has shown you, a labor monopoly which is dangerous to the eco- 
 nomic welfare of the nation, but it will also subject the excluded non- 
 unionist, together with all the rest of the laborers of the country outside 
 the union, to most indefensible wrongs. In the face of these facts we 
 maintain that such a movement is undeserving of the support of the 
 American people, and we ask you to defeat the resolution. 
 
 We come now to consider the effect of the closed shop upon all the 
 parties involved in such an agreement. We must not only consider its 
 effect upon the non-union man whom, as shown by my colleague, it 
 excludes, but we must also consider its effect upon the employer, whom 
 it binds hand and foot by the fetters of its dominion, upon the public, 
 which it would have the power to exploit, and upon which it would 
 have those basal principles of the American Government which such a 
 proposition repudiates. 
 
 Ere this it must have become obvious to you that the case of the 
 non-unionist is a prime consideration of this entire discussion. As stated 
 before, my colleague has shown you that unions must necessarily limit 
 their membership under pain of self-destruction, and that such a restric- 
 tion of membership would be the exploitation of the men excluded. This, 
 in itself, is enough to prove the undesirability of the closed shop. But 
 let us go further. 
 
 In the words of Carroll D. Wright, "A labor union is a voluntary 
 organization and is, therefore, like all other organizations, subordinate to 
 the laws of the land; it cannot enter upon legislation in the establishment 
 of rules that are inimical to the laws that apply to everyone else. Yet, 
 the union, in its endeavor to secure its own ends, sets itself up as a dis- 
 tinct governing agency, assuming to control those who do not join it, and 
 to deny to them the personal liberties which the members claim for 
 themselves and which the constitution guarantees to all." From this policy 
 it is self-evident that corecion is the only means beside the attraction of 
 desirability by which the union can hope to enlist the non-union man. 
 But the policy of coercion is against the law. According to the Supreme 
 Court reports of the State of Vermont, Vol. 59, page 273, in the case of 
 the State vs. Stewart: "Every man has the right to employ his talents, 
 industry and capital as he pleases, free from the dictation of others ; 
 and if two or more persons combine to coerce his choice in this behalf 
 it is criminal conspiracy. 
 
 Furthermore, any discrimination against the non-union man is illegal. 
 Judge Vaughn, of the New York Supreme Court, cites seventeen Federal 
 r cases showing that to create or maintain a monopoly of labor is expressly 
 ^ prohibited by statute, and an injunction is authorized to prevent it. John 
 / R. Commons, in his volume on "Trade Unionism and Labor Problems," 
 page 194, cites thirteen specific cases showing that the union cannot use 
 the force of its members to crush the non-union man. Thus the union 
 under the closed shop either condemns itself under the law by the exclu- 
 sion of the non-unionist, or it must resort to corecion, which is also 
 illegal. Regarding this, let me again quote from Carroll D. Wright, who 
 says : "A labor movement, or other movement, whose purpose can be 
 accomplished only by violation of the law, has no right to exist." Thus in 
 
TYPICAL DEBATERS' ARGUMENTS 239 
 
 either case, Honorable Judges, you are asked to support a movement which 
 is resort to illegal methods, having, therefore, no right to exist. 
 
 But under the closed shop the employer must also discriminate against 
 the non-union man. In regard to this we find that it is just as illegal 
 for the employer to discriminate against the non-union man as it is for 
 the union to discriminate against him. The New York Supreme Court, 
 the Superior Court of Massachusetts, the Circuit Court of Wisconsin and 
 the appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York all declare that 
 a closed shop contract is contrary to the criminal law of the state and is, 
 therefore, void. Therefore, any discrimination against the non-unionist, 
 either by the union or by the employer, a condition which is inherent in 
 the closed shop, is illegal and outrages those rights which the Constitu- 
 tion insures to all. In the face of these facts we ask the gentlemen from 
 Iowa what they propose to do with the non-union man. 
 
 But the right of any individual, the employer or laborer, dwindles 
 into insignificance compared with the dangers resulting to society from 
 selfishness of six or seven organized men who set their rights above 
 the rights of all other parties. It matters not how this selfishness mani- 
 fests itself, whether in the disregard of the law or in the exploitation of 
 the non-unionist; they are but manifestations of the underlying spirit of 
 the closed shop movement. In passing now to the consideration of the 
 public, we find that thus far the movement for the closed shop has been 
 characterized by an absolute refusal to safeguard public welfare. In 
 January, 1902, the coal dealers and the teamsters in the city of Chicago 
 entered into an agreement which provided that none but members of the 
 union should be employed, and that the teamsters should work for 
 none but members of the association. With this understanding, the agent 
 of the teamsters stopped the delivery of coal to the great firm of 
 Marshall Field & Co., that winter, until that firm signed a two years' 
 contract with the union to use coal gas instead of natural gas during the 
 summer. By virtue of a similar agreement the treasury of the Stonecut- 
 ters' Union received a bonus of 10 per cent on all contracts entered into 
 by the stone trades association. As a final instance of this kind of public 
 injustice I call your attention to the fact that last June, in the city of 
 Chicago, the Milk Dealers' Association and the Milk Wagon Drivers' 
 Union perfected a closed agreement. They decided that one delivery of 
 milk per day was sufficient for the people of Chicago. On June 5th, Dr. 
 Arthur R. Reynolds, Commissioner of Health, wrote a letter to the Milk 
 Dealers' Association, the Milk Shippers' Union and the Milk Wagon 
 Drivers' Union, the three organizations which absolutely control the milk 
 business of Chicago, protesting that a single delivery of milk in the poorer 
 districts of the city threatened an increased mortality among little children. 
 No attention was paid to this, and I quote from the weekly bulletin of 
 the Chicago Board of Health a month later, which reported: "In the last 
 week of June the deaths among infants and young children were 123 ; this 
 week 172 deaths were reported, showing an increase of 40 per cent. "Lad- 
 ies and gentlemen, these are specific instances of how the closed shop, 
 with the monopoly power, affects the welfare of the American people. 
 There are examples of the conditions to which you are subject yourselves 
 in supporting the proposition presented here this evening. And we ask 
 
240 OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA 
 
 you, under the stress of self-protection, that you give to the movement 
 of organized labor for the closed shop your complete condemnation. 
 
 Here is the complete cycle of closed shop injustice. We have shown 
 that such a policy means monopoly control. We have shown that such 
 a policy of power is unjustifiable from every standpoint of human liberty, 
 for its restriction is unfair to the great mass of non-union workers, and 
 its monopoly not only impairs the welfare of the employer and the help- 
 less consumer, a welfare linked inseparably with that of labor, but endan- 
 gers the very lives of the American people. The vital indictment of the 
 closed shop, therefore is its despotic and selfish monopoly which des- 
 troys the rights of the employer, the non-unionist, and jeopardizes the pros- 
 perity and even the life of the American public. Against such a policy 
 we plead. 
 
Index 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Abbott, Dr. Lyman 215 
 
 Aberdeen, South Dakota 122 
 
 Adams, T. S 95, 100 
 
 Akron, Ohio 188, 196 
 
 Allen, Governor 101 
 
 Alpine, John R 148 
 
 Alton, 111 94 
 
 American Academy of Political and Social Science 18 
 
 American Bridge Co 150 
 
 American Federation of Labor: 
 
 Bill of Rights 228 
 
 dues in 24 
 
 groupings in 29 
 
 history 29 
 
 membership 31 
 
 organization, system of 24 
 
 origin 24 
 
 President 8, 25, 143, 224, 228 
 
 American Industries 61 
 
 American Labor Year Book 24 
 
 American Magazine 133 
 
 Andrews, John B 185 
 
 Anthracite Coal Strike Commission 7, 54, 199, 200, 218 
 
 Apprenticeship, union 26, Chapter IX, 172 
 
 Architects, New York 174 
 
 Arguments, College debating Chapter XXIII 
 
 Army, Brooklyn supply base 141 
 
 Atlanta, Georgia 129 
 
 Augusta, Georgia 156 
 
 Ault, E. B 9, 167 
 
 Babson, Roger W 133 
 
 Baldwin Locomotive Works 67 
 
 Barnett, George E 29, 112 
 
 Benton Harbor, Michigan 8 
 
 Bethlehem Steel Company 175 
 
 Bird, J. Philip 22 
 
 Blakeley, Paul L 212 
 
 Boiler Makers' Brotherhood 78 
 
 Boston 71, 84 
 
 Boycott, courts and 230 
 
 Duplex case 162 
 
 Breen, John 201 
 
 Brick and Clay Record . : 101 
 
 Bricklayers 93, 102, 123, 136 
 
 Bridgemen's Magazine 6, 7 
 
 Brindell 174, 181 
 
 Brooklyn 141, 184 
 
 Brown, Joseph M 156 
 
 Buffalo : 94, 122, 188, 197 
 
 Buffalo Commercial 94, I 22 T 76, 183 
 
 Building trade n, 128, 181 
 
 Burrell, David James 206 
 
242 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Business Digest 133 
 
 Butte 129 
 
 Cadman, S. Parkes 211 
 
 Caldwell. Frank C 187 
 
 Carpenters 93, 94 
 
 Catholic Church, and the open shop 206, 212, 215 
 
 Chattanooga 131 
 
 Chicago, building conditions 1 18 
 
 Chicago Tribune 141, 164 
 
 Christian Science Monitor 190, 214 
 
 Cincinnitti, painters, demands in 118 
 
 Clergy, open shop and 65 
 
 Clerks, organization among 37 
 
 Cleveland 131 
 
 Gosed Shop, compulsion to establish; see Compulsion: 
 
 definition and forms 6, 10 
 
 employers, why some favor 181 
 
 England, harmed by 117, 190 
 
 ethics and Chapter XX 
 
 exclusive agreements and Chapter XVII 
 
 history, early American 15 
 
 jurisdictional disputes, increased by 138 
 
 legal aspects 219 
 
 monopoly aspects Chapter XVI 
 
 output, reduced by, Chapter X 119 
 
 outside control of industry Chapter VIII 
 
 prices, raised by Chapter XVII 
 
 South Africa harmed by 190 
 
 strikes to establish 223 
 
 unions, refuse to arbitrate 36, 63 
 
 Universal, would mean 190 
 
 Collective Bargaining, factors to consider. 52 
 
 National Association of Manufacturers, not opposed to 19, 20, 22 
 
 plant, by employes within 47, 57, 59, 63 
 
 presidential conferences 59, 61 
 
 unions, dictate 60, 66, 67 
 
 College debaters, arguments of Chapter XXIII 
 
 Commons, John R 15, 185 
 
 Community, open shop benefits Chapter XVIII 
 
 Competition, closed shop and : Chapter XVII 
 
 Compulsion, use of to establish closed shopi4, Chapter XIV, 167, 170, 
 
 173, 199 
 
 Conlon, P. J 102 
 
 Constantine, Earl 158, 202 
 
 Contracts, unions and ; see Irresponsibility. 
 
 Coolidge, Calvin 217 
 
 Co-operative representation ;see Collective Bragaining. 
 
 Courts, labor questions, attitude on 229 
 
 Union leaders defy 227 
 
 Cuyahoga County, Ohio 94 
 
 Cuyler, Thomas De Witt 179 
 
 Daily Bond Buyer 194 
 
 Dallas 122, 129, 163, 192, 196 
 
 Danbury, Connecticut 196 
 
 Danbury Hatters' case 75 
 
 Debaters, arguments of college Chapter XXIII 
 
 suggestions to - Chapter XXIII 
 
 Davenport, Daniel 229 
 
 Day. James R 214 
 
 Deibler, F. S 95, 172 
 
 De Leeu w, A. L , 59 
 
INDEX 243 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Dennett, H. W 36, 63 
 
 Denver 121 
 
 Detroit 129 
 
 Donnelley, T. E 89, 125 
 
 Doyle, C. W 100 
 
 Doyle, Edward L 166 ' 
 
 Drew, Walter 40, 75, 225 
 
 Duncan, James 186 
 
 Dunn, Edward 138 
 
 Duplex Printing Company 162 
 
 Edgerton, John E 205 
 
 Efficiency, see Scientific Management. 
 
 Unions should increase 45 
 
 Eliot, Charles W 214 
 
 Elyria, Ohio, Open Shop efficiency 127 
 
 Emery, James A 20, 22, 52, 58, 71, 191, 224 
 
 Emmet, Dr 51 
 
 England, closed shop harms 117, 190 
 
 Employers : 
 
 Closed Shop and prices Chapter XVII 
 
 Closed Shop, why some favor 181, 183 
 
 Exclusive agreements Chapter XVII 
 
 Stop work only when necessary 38 
 
 Unionists refuse to work for 36 
 
 Epworth League, Kansas 166 
 
 Ethics, closed shop and ^ Chapter XX 
 
 Exclusive agreements Chapter XVII 
 
 Farmers, injured by strikes 70, 190 
 
 Fay, Charles Norman 65, 200 
 
 Fee, Grant 67, 90, 108 
 
 Fetter, Dr. Frank 85, 95, 167 
 
 Florence, Alabama 131 
 
 Foster, William Z 82, 176 
 
 Gary, Elbert H 61 
 
 Gibbons, Cardinal 215 
 
 Gibson, J. Bruce 12=5 
 
 Glenn, John M 157 
 
 Gompers, Samuel ; see American Federation of Labor, President. 
 
 Goodrich, Governor 216 
 
 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co 196 
 
 Gore, C. R 201 
 
 Grace, Eugene 175 
 
 Grand Rapids, open shop and 197 
 
 Grange, National '. 7, I 9 
 
 Grant, Luke M9, *77 
 
 Green, William 186 
 
 Groat, Professor 100 
 
 Gun-men, used by New York unions 152 
 
 Hammond, John Hays 214 
 
 Harding, Warren 217 
 
 Harvey's Weekly 93 
 
 Hoover, Herbert 217 
 
 Howard, Earl Dean 63 
 
 Independent labor, rights of, Chapter XIX 215 
 
 "scabs" and unionists 203 
 
 unionists won't work with 36 
 
 union members, efficiency comparison Chapter XI 
 
 union monpoly, how affected by 169 
 
 Indianapolis 188, 194 
 
 Individual bargaining 67 
 
 Individual freedom, principle upheld 215, 217, 218 
 
244 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Industrial conference, presidential 59, 61 
 
 Industrial warfare Chapter XIV 
 
 Industry, size of establishments 52, 58 
 
 Initiation fees, in unions 26,173 
 
 Interstate Commerce Commission 177 
 
 . Ireland, Archbishop 215 
 
 Iron Trade Review 191 
 
 Iron Workers' Union 6, 70, 75, 79, 150, 177 
 
 Irresponsibility of unions, business world comparisons 71, 165 225 
 
 contract violation 71, 73, .224 
 
 employers, result on 76 
 
 financial responsibility, none Chapter VII 
 
 legal responsibility, none 75 
 
 removal of 224, 226 
 
 bhannsen, Anton 36, 161 
 
 ohnson, Alba B 67 
 
 ones, "Mother" 155 
 
 udge, Patrick 173 
 
 urisdictional disputes; see strikes, jurisdictional. 
 
 Kansas, Epworth League 166 
 
 Keeler, Edward A 186 
 
 Kilby, Governor 164 
 
 Knights of Labor 24, 30 
 
 Kurn, St. Louis-San Francisco Railway 179 
 
 Label, union 191 
 
 Labor Review, Monthly 51 
 
 Labor Statistics, Federal Bureau of 38 
 
 Lauck, W. Jett 60 
 
 Laughlin, J. Laurence 43, 169 
 
 Lawson, John R 72 
 
 Leo XIII, Pope 206 
 
 Levy, Pacific Coast Merchant Tailors 123 
 
 Lincoln, Abraham 214 
 
 Little Rock 1 16, 130, 173, 193 
 
 Little Rock, New Sky Line 47, 116, 130, 163, 173, 193 
 
 Lloyd, Ernest F 65, 76, 83, 1 19, 165 
 
 Lloyd George, output restriction in England 117 
 
 Lockwood Committee; see Brindell. 
 
 Los Angeles 188, 194, 197, 201 
 
 Los Angeles Times 124, 127, 197 
 
 Lum, Dyer D 203 
 
 Machinery, union opposition 95, 1 12, 187 
 
 Machinists, International Association of 85,86,98, 161, 177 
 
 Manufacturers Record 196 
 
 Markham, C. H 37 
 
 Marot, Helen 8, 64, 149 
 
 Mason, Stephen C 18 
 
 Massachusetts, Employers' Association of Eastern 71 
 
 Material, refusal to handle open shop 12, 173 
 
 Maurer, James H 162 
 
 McAdoo, William 231 
 
 McCabe, Bishop 215 
 
 McCabe, Dr. David 95 
 
 McCord, Frank B 79 
 
 McNamara case 150 
 
 Medina, New York 127 
 
 Merritt, Walter Gordon 1 19, 184 
 
 Methodist Church, bishops favor open shop 215,216 
 
 Minimum wage, union is maximum 95 
 
 Minneapolis 131. 
 
 Citizens Alliance 122, 131 
 
INDEX 245 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Minnesota 191 
 
 Minnesota Daily Star 166 
 
 Minority, control by opposed, Chapter VIII, 215, 216 
 
 Mitchell, John 74, 167, 227 
 
 Moffitt, Tohn A 78 
 
 Monopoly, closed shop and, Chapter XVI 
 
 labor, consequences of 169 
 
 National Association of Manufacturers: 
 
 apprentices, rules of unions opposed 85 
 
 co-operative representation, report of sub-committee 49 
 
 labor principles Chapter II 
 
 public, gives facts to 6 
 
 purpose and work 20 
 
 National Erectors Association 130, 177 
 
 National Founders Asosciation 175 
 
 National Industrial Conference Board 51 
 
 National Labor Digest 32, 186 
 
 National Roofing Company no 
 
 Newspapers, closed shop and 122 
 
 New York State Industrial Commission 38 
 
 New York City newspapers : 
 
 Call 82 
 
 Daily News Record 197 
 
 Herald 121, 179 
 
 Mail 135 
 
 Sun 152 
 
 Times 179, 181, 182, 190 
 
 Tribune 194 
 
 Wall Street Journal 179 
 
 Norfolk, Virginia 131 
 
 North Tonawanda, New York 122 
 
 Non-union labor -.see Independent labor. 
 
 Oakland no 
 
 O'Donnell, Simon 136 
 
 Oklahoma Employer 196 
 
 Omaha 131 
 
 Open Shop, abuse of 23 
 
 community benefits from Chapter XVIII 
 
 definition 7 
 
 laws to establish, opposed 232 
 
 operating costs reduced by Chapter XI 
 
 support, extent of 16, 23 
 
 suppression, not aim of 23, 39 
 
 unionists, employed where possible 36 
 
 value, statistics prove Chapter XVIII 
 
 wages and 202 
 
 Open Shop Review 196 
 
 Operating costs, computation of 120 
 
 Organized labor; see also Union, American Federation of Labor. 
 
 future of 32 
 
 neglects opportunities 33 
 
 without unions . .. 47 
 
 Osborne, Benjamin 9 
 
 Output, open shop increases Chapter XI 
 
 restriction of Chapter X 
 
 Parker. Governor 216 
 
 Paterson, J. V 159 
 
 Paterson, New Jersey 197 
 
 Patterson, .Harvey A 120 
 
 Phelps, F. W.... 204 
 
246 INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Philadelphia 71 
 
 Piez, Charles N 79, m 
 
 Plumbers 92, 94, 101 
 
 Poindexter, Senator 216 
 
 Preece, Thomas H 101 
 
 Preferential shop, and closed shop 8 
 
 Presbyterians, clergymen denounces closed shops 206 
 
 Prices, closed shop increases Chapter XVII 
 
 Printing Pressmen 7 
 
 Public : 
 
 Industry should consider 211 
 
 Legality of closed shop agreements made by public officials 222 
 
 Officials cannot discriminate against independent workers 191, 216, 
 
 218, 222 
 
 Open shop, how benefits Chapter XVII 
 
 Prices, closed shop, and Chapter XVII 
 
 Strikes, how they affect Chapter XIV 
 
 Quakers, bricklayers 123 
 
 Quayle, Bishop 216 
 
 Quincy, Illinois, American Open Shop Association 130 
 
 Railroads, open shop and 177 
 
 Rand School of Social Science 24 
 
 Recognition of unions . 36, 64,65 
 
 Rents, increased by closed shop policy 186, 217 
 
 Review of Reviews 189 
 
 Rice, I. H 196 
 
 Robins, Mrs. Raymond 74 
 
 Rochester Democrat Chronicle 186 
 
 Rochester, efficiency comparisons 126 
 
 Roosevelt, Theodore 7, 200, 218 
 
 St. Joseph, Michigan 8 
 
 St. Louis-San Francisco Railway 179 
 
 St. Paul, Minnesota 166 
 
 Salt Lake 120, 130 
 
 San Francisco 108, 123, 188, 195 
 
 Sargent, Noel 99 
 
 "Scab" 203 
 
 Scientific Management 102, 103, 120 
 
 Seattle 36, 129, 166, 189, 194 
 
 Seattle Union Record 36, 166 
 
 Shedd, John G 80 
 
 Shipyard Labor Adjustment Board 232 
 
 Shrum, Al 163 
 
 Sioux Citv, Iowa, Employers' Association 141 
 
 Skinner, George N ." 77 
 
 Smelser, D. P 25, 97. TOT 
 
 South Africa, closed shop harms 190 
 
 Southwestern Open Shop Association 129 
 
 Spencer, W. J " 183 
 
 Splinters and Chips 141 
 
 Standard Pattern Company 122 
 
 Statistics, open shop supported by Chapter XVIII 
 
 Steel industry, open shop and 174 
 
 Stockton, Dr. Frank 7, 8, 64, 119, 138, 141, 183 
 
 Stone cutters, machinery, opposition to 112 
 
 Street railways, open shop and 48 
 
 Strikes, barbarous 2I 4 
 
 definition 132 
 
 farmers, loss from 7o 
 
 general Chapter XII 
 
 illegal 223 
 
INDEX . 247 
 
 PAGE 
 
 jurisdictional Chapter XIII 
 
 open shop reduces 189, 193 
 
 "outlaw" 70 
 
 statistics 132 
 
 sympathetic . 74, Chapter XIII 
 
 Survey, reviews record of Grand Rapids 197 
 
 System 139 
 
 Tacoma, Associated Industries 39, 59, 129, 189 
 
 Taft, William Howard 217, 232 
 
 Taylor, Dudley 76, 157, 192 
 
 Thayer, Judge Webster 198 
 
 Thomas, Christy 189 
 
 Tompkins, Roswell D 103 
 
 Torpy, Charles B 139 
 
 Twin Falls, Idaho 130 
 
 Typographical Union 36, 98 
 
 Unions, acts condoned by Chapter XV 
 
 ambitious, refuse to join 201 
 
 attitude of employers Chapter II, 76 
 
 controlled by minority +. . . 81 
 
 defiance of law 227 
 
 dictation by opposed 215 216 
 
 faults, can be remedied 40, 43 
 
 groupings 'of 29 
 
 initiation fees 26 
 
 label 191 
 
 machinery, opposition to 95, 112 
 
 members, refuse to work with independent workers 36 
 
 membership in 25, 31 
 
 minority of workers contained in 31 
 
 recognition; see Recognition. 
 
 scientific management, wages reduced by opposition to 103 
 
 standard wages for all 95 
 
 Union shop, and closed shop 7 
 
 United Mine Workers 70, 72, 161, 164 
 
 United States, closed shop and war 123, 141 
 
 output restriction, government report ... % 93, 95 
 
 War Labor Board 126 
 
 Valentine, Joseph F 66 
 
 Violence : 
 
 between unions 145 
 
 condoned by unions Chapter XV 
 
 Industrial disputes and Chapter XIV 
 
 Wages : 
 
 Monopoly, used by unions to raise 170 
 
 Open shop and 202 
 
 Scientific management increases 104 
 
 standard forced by unions 95 
 
 War: 
 
 Closed shop delayed winning 117 
 
 Open shop and I9 1 
 
 U. S. Govt. experience with closed shops 123. 141 
 
 Warfare, industrial Chapter XIV 
 
 War Labor Board, National 232 
 
 Weekly Review 42 
 
 White* Motor Trucks 47 
 
 Whitney, Dr. Nathaniel : 142 
 
 Wilson, jA. W, 94 
 
 Wolfe. Dr. F. E 8, 26, 88, 172 
 
 Wolman, Leo 31, T Q8 
 
 Women's Trade Union League, National 74 
 
248 INDEX 
 
 Woods, Arthur 153 
 
 Work, refusal to complete 12, 174 
 
 Wright, Judge F. M. 136 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 TO ^ 202 Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. 
 
 Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 RECEIVED BY 
 
 
 
 MAY 1 1 ttfifi 
 
 
 
 rim NATION DE 
 
 *r 
 
 
 V*IKV*ULMI Iwl^l irfc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 FORM NO. DD6, 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
GENERAL LIBRARY. U.c. BERKELEY