# The Threat to the Labor Movement/Section 15

Leading Capitalist Organ in Full Accord.
THE TIMES in a recent editorial makes a comparison between the methods of arbitration under government supervision—the logical and inevitable extension of the "union-management co-operation" policy—and militant unionism. It compares the outcome of the arbitration proceedings affecting trainmen and conductors on eastern lines with the outcome of the cloakmakers' strike, and says:
Two labor stories of importance stand out in the day's news. They supply chronicle and comment on the rival methods of reason and war in industry. A board of arbitration acting under the new railroad law awards an increase to the conductors and trainmen on eastern railroads, equivalent to a 7½ per cent increase in wages.
Simultaneously, a mass meeting of garment workers in New York City bitterly denounces . . . . a leadership which precipitated . . . . an unnecessary strike . . . . terminating in an admittedly disastrous defeat. . . . . The conflict was planned and let loose by the left wing element in the local unions.
Arbitration wins, strikes lose—this is the burden of the duet sung by the right wing and capitalist press. I propose to diverge here from the main line of my argument for a moment and deal briefly with the attempt of The Times, in which it is not alone by any means, to confuse issues by an analogy which is no analogy at all.
In the first place anyone who tries to make the wage problems of garment workers appear to be the same as those of conductors and trainmen is either ignorant or dishonest. Trainmen and conductors, occupying strategic positions in a key industry, are accorded privileges by the capitalists which are denied to less favored sections of the workers. But this is no reason why these workers should adopt arbitration as a method of securing their demands. As a matter of fact, the greatest concession ever secured by these workers was gained by the threat of a general strike. (The eight-hour provisions of the Adamson law enacted in 1916.)
The 7½ per cent increase in wages given by the mediation board, seems to be a great victory when it is stated in a lump sum as The Times does ($15,000,000). But, figured out in dollars and cents per worker it dwindles surprisingly. To be exact:
The average wage of these two groups of railway workers, according to the figures of the railroad labor board, was $5.71 per day in 1925. Based on a thirty-day month (this is far above the average, but I am inclined to be generous) this would be a monthly income of $171.30.
The boasted 7½ per cent increase therefore shrinks to $12.74 per month—certainly representing no tremendous victory for unions which had demanded an increase of 20 per cent especially when we take into consideration the fact that railway profits for this year are estimated in round figures at $1,380,000,000.
The garment workers secured an increase of $2 and $3 per week and in addition a reduction of hours from 44 to 42 for the first half of the life of the agreement and a 40-hour week for the last half. Neither are the gar​ment workers bound to any arbitration scheme—the union has retained its freedom of action.
For a trade union this is of fundamental importance.
We see that The Times' estimate of the two events is sadly lacking in veracity. The garment workers, even tho led by the left wing to "an admittedly disastrous defeat," as The Times puts it, did considerably better than the trainmen and conductors in spite of the privileges granted these key workers by an anxious imperialist system.
But The Times is, like the official trade union leadership, concerned with "peace in industry" and "partnership in industry." Cassius-like, it pretends friendship only to stab. As we have seen, The Times professes to be worried greatly by the dissension in the union, but its greatest grief is reserved for the passing of the submission of the, New York Joint Board to the governor's commission. It says:
The principle of arbitration, and beyond that, of CO-OPERATION FOR THE PROMOTION OF PEACE AND THE WELFARE OF THE INDUSTRY, SEEMED TO BE WELL ESTABLISHED. . . . . A noteworthy advance had been made TOWARD THAT PARTNERSHIP IN INDUSTRY WHICH UNDERLIES THE SANEST THOUGHT among both employers and workers. (Emphasis mine.)
We can be certain that The Times will agree that the "sanest thought" in this direction among employers is voiced equally well by President Green.
The Times is for "partnership in industry."
So is the American Federationist.
Both publications, one typically capitalist, the other typical of the official trade union press, denounce the left wing because it warns the workers of the danger of the policy expressed in this phrase and organizes them for a policy of struggle.
Official labor leadership and the organs of labor's class enemies here show conclusively that they at least have established an "identity of interest."
This same collusion of re-action appears in other fields.