In the compilation of data and in the preparation of "Organized Labor, its Problems, Purposes and Ideals," I have been assisted by Walter E. Weyl, Ph. D., and we have consulted, among many others, the following authorities. Webb (Sidney and Beatrice). Industrial Democracy. London, New York, and Bombay. Webb (Sidney and Beatrice). The History of Trade Unionism. London, New York, and Bombay. Stimson (F. J.). Handbook to the Labor Law of the United States. New York. Ely (Richard T.). The Labor Movement in America. New York. Engels (Frederick). The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844. Translated by Wright (Carroll D.). The Industrial Evolution of the United States. New York. Walker (Francis A.). The Wages Question. Boston. Howell (George). The Conflicts of Capital and Labour. London and New York. McMaster (James B.). History of the People of the United States. Lloyd (Henry D.). A Country without Strikes. Report of the National Conference on Industrial Conciliation. 1902 and 1903. Report of the United States Industrial Commission. Vols. XVII and XIX. THE PREFACE 'HE average wage earner has made up his mind that he must remain a wage earner. He has given up the hope of a kingdom to come, where he himself will be a capitalist, and he asks that the reward for his work be given to him as a workingman. Singly, he has been too weak to enforce his just demands and he has sought strength in union and has associated himself into labor organizations. Labor unions are for the workman, but against no one. They are not hostile to employers, not inimical to the interests of the general public. They are for a class, because that class exists and has class interests, but the unions did not create and do not perpetuate the class or its interests and do not seek to evoke a class conflict. There is no necessary hostility between labor and capital. Neither can do without the other; each has evolved from the other. Capital is labor saved and materialized; the power to labor is in itself a form of capital. There is not even a necessary, fundamental antagonism between the laborer and the capitalist. Both are men, with the virtues and vices of men, and each wishes at times more than his fair share. Yet, broadly considered, the interest of the one is the interest of the other, and the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the other. Where wages are high, capital and the * conduct of business are not without their reward; where the industry of the country is carried on by broad-minded, far-seeing, adventurous leaders, the remuneration of labor increases, even to the common laborer on the streets. The trade unions stand for the principle of united action and for the policy of a living wage earned under fair living conditions. In union there is strength, justice, and moderation; in disunion, nothing but an alternating humility and insolence, a state of industrial despotism tempered by futile and passing revolutions. Unions stand for the right of association, self government, and free speech, for the dignity and self-respect of the workman, for the mutual esteem of capitalist and wage earner, and for a wide, far-seeing, open-minded, democratic conduct of industry. The living wage means the American standard of living. The world does not owe a man a living, but the man owes it to himself, and the industry that voluntarily employs and voluntarily retains him owes him the right to earn it under fair and living conditions. In the pursuit of these ideals trade unionism has justified its existence by good works and high purposes. At one time viewed with suspicion by workman and employer alike, it has gained the affections of the one and the enlightened esteem of the other. Slowly and gradually it has progressed toward the fulfilment of its ideals. It has elevated the standard of living of the American workman and conferred upon him higher wages and more leisure. It has increased efficiency, diminished accidents, averted disease, kept the children at school, raised the moral tone of the factories, and improved the relations between employer and employed. In so doing, it has stood upon the broad ground of justice and humanity. It has defended the weak against the strong, the exploited against the exploiter. It has stood for efficiency rather than cheapness, for the producer rather than production, for the man rather than the dollar. It has voiced the claims of the unborn as of the living and has stayed the hand of that ruthless, near-sighted profit-seeking which would destroy future generations as men wantonly cut down forests. It has spoken for the negro slave on the plantation and the white slave in the factory. It has aided and educated the newly arrived immigrant, protected the toil of women and children, and fought the battle of the poor in attic and sweat shop. It has conferred benefits, made sacrifices, and, unfortunately, committed errors. I do not conceal from myself that trade unionism has made its mistakes. No institution fully attains its ideals, and men stumble and fall in their upward striving. The labor union is a great, beneficent, democratic institution, not all-good, not all-wise, not all-powerful, but with the generous virtues and enthusiastic faults of youth. Labor leaders have erred, but the underlying impulse has been good, and the unions have sought the welfare of their class and of society. I have mentioned these faults and errors of American trade unions, because I believe that they should not be glossed over by the men who love the unions in spite of their faults. I believe, however, that many employers have been less than just and have closed their eyes to the virtues of unions while searching for flaws with a microscope. Capital should be as tolerant and fair to labor as labor is to capital, and the employer should cease to consider unions and their policy beneath his notice and should begin to study them in a frank, open-minded manner. What is required between these two factors in production are knowledge and mutual understanding. Ignorance is the mother of prejudice and strife, and peace may come only from an understanding of the attitude of an opponent. The labor problem cannot be solved by the benevolence of employers, but only by their justice and wisdom, not by gifts or donations, not by allotments or sales of stocks, not even by profit-sharing. However beneficent these may be, the problem can be solved only by a recognition of the rights of labor and a willingness on the part of employers to confer with their associated workmen and to formulate trade agreements covering the whole field of the labor contract. The recognition of the rights of organized labor by the making of trade agreements will with the coming years become more and more general in the United States. The American employer is too broad-minded not to realize the advantage of such a method of securing stable conditions and of ensuring a spirit of friendly coöperation among his men. The manufacturer of the future will no more forego such an insurance of the good will of his workmen than he will permit his factory to remain uninsured against fire. The trade agreement makes for peace in the industrial world. Strikes will not entirely disappear, and the fear or possibility of strikes will still remain, but the frequent bickerings and constant irritation will vanish, and strikes themselves will be reduced to a minimum. To the present period of industrial war will succeed an era of peace, an era of peace with honor to both sides. |