or poor workmanship; but as these fines and this docking affect the union wage, they should be jointly determined upon by the employer and union, and not by the employer alone, nor between the employer and the individual workman. If the individual employee is permitted to make any rebate or allow any deduction whatsoever, under whatever guise, from the wages fixed as a minimum by the union, then the whole principle of a union scale of wages will fall to the ground.

The necessity of maintaining the collective, rather than the individual, bargain explains why the trade union is sometimes opposed to the piece system and sometimes not. When the piece price can be regulated collectively, as in bituminous coal mining, the unions are not antagonistic to, but actually in favor of, this system. Where, however, each separate job differs and a price must be put upon it separately, payment by the piece degenerates into a system of underbidding and undercutting and to the resurrection of individual bargaining in one of its worst forms. Where the price cannot be fixed collectively and where time wages cannot be paid, the union has solved the problem, at least partially, by having the shop foreman, a representative of all the men in the establishment, fix the price of the work in concert with the employer or foreman.

Like the wage scale, the length of the working day, as determined by the union and employers, must be protected from changes made by individual workmen. The individual workman cannot be allowed to work longer hours than the union prescribes as a maximum, or to work more overtime, or at different times, or for less compensation than is fixed by the collective bargain. If the individual workman is to decide for himself how much overtime he will work, and at what rate of compensation, he can just as surely underbid other workmen as by accepting a lower wage at the start.

There is hardly an action taken by the trade unions, hardly a demand made, which does not either immediately or ultimately, directly or indirectly, involve this principle. Whether the union demand a higher standard of licalthfulness, confort, or decency in the factories, or a greater degree of

protection from machinery, or any other concession ministering to the health or safety of the employee, the demand is always in the form of a certain minimum for all workers. The union does not prohibit a man from being paid more wages for less hours than his fellows, but it does claim that no man shall work in union shops for less than a certain rate, for more than a certain number of hours, for more than so and so much overtime, or at a lower rate for overtime, or with less than a given amount of protection to his health, comfort, safety, and well-being. The employer may, if he wish, make special provision for the health of a favorite workman, just as he may pay above the union rate or allow an employee, in return for the minimum wage, to work less than the maximum number of working hours prescribed by the union. What the union insists upon, however, is that certain minimum requirements be fulfilled for the health, comfort, and safety of all, in order that the workingmen shall not be obliged to compete for jobs by surrendering their claims to a reasonable amount of protection for their health, and for their life and limb.

The trade union thus stands for the freedom of contract on the part of workingmen-the freedom or right to contract collectively. The trade union also stands for definiteness of the labor contract. The relation between employer and employee is complex in its nature, even though it appear simple. The workingman agrees to work at the wage offered to him by the employer, at, say, fifteen dollars a week, but frequently nothing is said as to hours of labor, pauses for meals and rest, intensity of work, conditions of the workshop, protection of the workman against filthy surroundings or unguarded machinery, character of his fellow-workmen, liability of the employer for accident, nor any of the thousand conditions which affect the welfare of the workman and the gain of both employer and employee. There has always been a general tacit understanding between employers and employees that these conditions shall roughly conform to the usual and ordinary custom of the trade, but in the absence of an agreement with the union, it is in the power of the employer to make such rules absolutely, or to change or amend them at such time as he thinks proper. Like the rail

road timetables, the individual contract reads, "Subject to change without notice."

The recognition of the union is nothing more nor less than the recognition of the principle for which trade unionism stands, the right to bargain collectively and to insist upon a common standard as a minimum. Workingmen have a nominal, but not a real freedom of contract, if they are prevented from contracting collectively instead of individually. The welfare of the working classes, as of society, depends upon the recognition of this principle of the right of employees to contract collectively. An employer, be he ever so well-meaning, stands in the way of future progress if he insist upon dealing with his workmen "as individuals." While in his establishment wages may not by this means be reduced, owing to the fact that other establishments are organized, still the principle for which he stands, if universally adopted, would mean the degradation and impoverishment of the working classes. There are many employers who surrender the principle of the individual bargain without accepting the principle of the collective bargain. These employers state that they do not insist upon dealing with their employees as individuals, but that they must retain the right of dealing with "their own employees solely," and that they must not be forced to permit a man who is not their own employee to interfere in their busiThe right to bargain collectively, however, or to take any other concerted action, necessarily involves the right to representation. Experience and reason both show that a man, even if otherwise qualified, who is dependent upon the good will of an employer, is in no position to negotiate with him, since an insistence upon what he considers to be the rights of the men represented by him may mean his dismissal or, at all events, the loss of the favor of his employer. Not only should workingmen have the right of contracting collectively, but they should also have the right of being represented by whomsoever they wish. The denial of the right of representation is tyranny. Without the right to choose their representative, the men cannot enjoy the full benefit of collective bargaining; and without the right of collective bargaining, the door is opened to the individual contract and to

ness.

the progressive debasement of the working classes, and to the deterioration of conditions of work to the level of conditions in the sweated and unregulated trades. To avoid this calamity and to raise the working classes to a high state of efficiency and a high standard of citizenship, the organized workmen demand and insist upon "the recognition of the union.”

CHAPTER II

LABOR UNORGANIZED

The History of Labor is the History of the Human Race. The Chronicles of Kings and the Annals of the Poor. Ancient Society. War and Slavery. The Military System. Character of Ancient Slavery. Serfdom. Free Labor and the Freedom of Contract. Free Labor, the Collective Contract, and Trade Unionism.

'HE history of labor is the history of the human race. From the dim

mest ages of antiquity, man has eaten his bread in the sweat of his brow and has toiled incessantly that he might live. There has never been a Golden Age when men lived without working or reaped fields that were not sown. All that the race has gained, the right to live and bear children, the improvement of existence, the securing of comfort, happiness, and civilization, has been the result of an unremittent, never-ending toil on the part of inillions.

The reward of labor has not always been to the laborer. From the beginning some have worked and others played, some have tilled and others eaten of the fruits. The workers, however, have always been in a vast majority.

In reading the history of past ages, one might imagine that the world was comprised of kings and nobles and that the common people had no existence. History reads like the newspapers of fashion, which tell us each summer that "everyone is out of town," though hundreds of thousands of wage earners are sweltering at their daily tasks. The pages of history abound with narratives of the doings and sayings of kings and princes, while the life and labor of the vast, silent, unnumbered multitude of toilers are unrecorded and unmentioned.

The wage earners of to-day differ fundamentally from the men who in