to religion and morals, and during even the last fifty years the stigma of belonging to a labor union has only slowly been changed into an honor. The public, however, has now been educated by the unions to a recognition of the essential merits of organization and to an appreciation of the wisdom and temperance of many leaders, as well as of the rank and file, although much still remains to be done to bring to the public a realizing sense of its full duty toward labor organizations. The change in the attitude of public opinion toward trade unionism is traceable in large measure to a fundamental revolution in the thoughts of the people with regard to the rights and privileges of workingmen, and to a change in the current theories concerning the distribution of wealth. In the eighteenth and in preceding centuries it was commonly held that low wages were good, and high wages bad, for society. When wages were high, the workingman, it was believed, would become lazy and would not work; when wages were low, he would be obliged to work continuously in order to sustain life. Society would thus progress better when wages were low and the price of food, high. As long as society fixed its eyes upon profits and not upon wages, as long as it considered wages as a cost which it had to pay, like the cost of an army or a navy, low wages continued to be held good and any organization or union tending to improve wages, bad. In the half century from 1817 to about 1867, the theoretical opposition to trade unionism took a different form. During this period it was generally assumed that wages could not rise, since there was only a certain fund or amount of wages to be given out at any particular time, and if some workman received more, other workmen would have to content themselves with less. It was believed that if a union temporarily raised wages, other workmen would seek employment in the trade, and wages would again fall to the former level, while, if by any means, all workmen secured a temporary advance in wages, the birth rate would rise and the increase in population would again reduce wages. According to this theory, trade unionism was foolish, if not harmful, and was, therefore, undeserving of the support of wise and intelligent people. It happened in this instance, however, as it has happened many times before and since, that the wise men were wrong and the "foolish" men right. The healthy common sense of the unionist, who saw the advances of wages and the improved conditions and did not fear the ghosts in the economist's closet, has been completely vindicated by subsequent events. The men who, instead of taking the lead in the movement for reform, remained in their studies and proved by all the laws of logic that reform was impossible, have at last recognized that the trade unionists were right. The theory of limiting wages to a certain pre-determined part of a preexisting fund, has been overthrown and has finally been relegated to the lumber room of false theories, while the trade unionists, who builded even better than they knew, are now acknowledged to have been in advance of the wise men of their time. During the last forty years, therefore, organizations of labor have constanty grown in popular esteem. The unionists have worked patiently, while others predicted their failure. They have paid dues, which, it was asserted, was an unprofitable expenditure of wealth; they have declared strikes, a thing denounced by employers, economists, and ecclesiastics, as both useless and immoral; they have slowly worked out their salvation and have justified their existence by what they have accomplished. Even at the present time, though to a less extent, trade unionism meets with the same sort of objections as it encountered fifty or seventy-five years ago. Just as it has been compelled to fight for each petty increase in wages and each slight reduction in hours, recording a small gain here and a small gain there, advancing gradually like the waters of a slowly rising flood, so it has been compelled to contest each inch of ground and to struggle continually, patiently, and painfully toward the distant goal of public favor. Moreover, just as the material advance of trade unionism is marked by occasional setbacks, so the gradual clarifying of public opinion is retarded by occasional recessions. Even now organized labor must meet with opposing ideals held by society, ideals born of past conditions and destined to disappear, abstract ideals, like those of the wage-fund and the immutable law of supply and demand, independent of human action. Some of these ideals, such as the uncontrolled right of a man to work, the right of a man to run his own business, the right of a man to do what he will with his own, while still held firmly and absolutely by good and sincere men, who therefore oppose trade unionism, are slowly dissolving and disintegrating, and before long will cease to exist, except in the minds of men who are in their generation, but not of it. Just as trade unionism is not one and indivisible, so public opinion is not one and indivisible. There are many separate and distinct eddies in the great stream of public opinion, and there are many who fail to realize the direction in which the main current is flowing. Moreover, public opinion is not infallible, just as trade unionism is not infallible. There are times and occasions, especially in periods of great stress and excitement, when the voice of the people ceases to be the voice of God. Generally, the opinion of the public, though broad and sweeping, is in the main just and fair and reasonable. Trade unionism should adopt the policy, and subscribe to the principle, of attempting to follow the best and most enlightened public opinion of the day. I do not mean that trade unionists should surrender any of the fundamental doctrines or ideals of organized labor to what may be but a passing whim of the public, but broadly speaking, the organized workingmen of the country cannot and should not hope for any permanent success unless their actions are in accord with the ideals of the American people. There is more than mere policy in this obedience to the popular will. The wage earners of the country, like the manufacturers, the farmers, the professional classes, the small tradesmen, are all a part of society, and in the long run, no one of these classes can succeed unless it has the support, approval, and sanction of the whole community. The welfare of society is even more important than the welfare of organized workmen, and the welfare of each is bound up in the welfare of the other. Trade unionism will prosper as it respects the will of the people, and with its prosperity will come a clearer recognition on the part of the great, humane public of the justice of its ideals and the wisdom of its policy. |