The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1900-08-11
RIGHTS OF LABOR
OPPONENTS OF UNIONlSM FORGET
PRINCIPLES OF Equal RIGHTS.

Success In the Struggle for Exist
enre-WOrk men Have the Right
t" Set the Prices and Conditions
Of Their Labor.
Several recent occurrences have re-
vived the old and exploded charge that
labor organizati tiOns are Incompatible
With the maintenance Of equality of
rights and liberty. says the American
Fedrratiunist Do not the unionists de-
nland preference over the non-union
lists. and do they not. by insisting upon
recognition and the exclusive employ
nent Of organized workmen, deprive
others of a right to a livelihood? These
questions are asked directly or by i'm
plcatiun by every opponent of union
ism. ana the superficial consider them
serious if not unanswerable. Yet they
he.tray ignorance of the very principles
OF equal rights which they profess to
invoke. ignorance of the nature Of the
industrial system which is upheld as
the highest product of our civilization.
('nonism. with all that it involves. is
based on equality of rights and liberty.
What organized labor does capital has
done constantly since the esta blishment
ut competitive industry and the "frec'
market.
Let us take concrete and striking
illustrations: The capitalistic press, the
alleged champion of American justice
and constitutional liberty. has COM
mtnCed "vigOrOus protest. issued by
the New York and New Jersey Machin-
cry Manufacturers Association against
the policy Of the machinists' union The
protest may be vigorous in terms, but
it is Wretched in it's logic. The union
demanded an agreement on the part OF
the manufacturers to employ no ma
rhnists in the future who did not sat
isfy it's requirements. In other words
the union demanded the discharge or
certain men with whom it was not will
ling it's members should work and
exacted a promise that none obnoxious
to it should be employed in the future.
This. according to the press, was an
outra geous, tyrannical. un-Amerlcan
proposal. They say that the non union
machnists had the same right to earn
their living as anyone; that this is
free country and therefore men must
be allowed to make agreements regard
ing services and wages unrestricted and
unmoIested, and the laws and institu-
tions of the country We're maintained
ito protect this freedom Of contract.
/! They wind up bY5 declaring that they
ay,Iyss
union men to violate tire laws fof our
country BY depriving free American
citizens of the right to work for whom
they choose"
The argument has plausible air, but
it is wholly fallacious. 1t Overlooks
one-haf of the truth. 1t forgets the
rights and freedom Of the uniOnists.
What about their right to make con-
tracts unrestricted? What about their
right to earn a livelihood on their own
terms?
The right of workingmen to organize
is admitted.
Their right to say what wages they
will work for is admitted.
Their right to strike for any reason
which they deem sufficient is also rec
ogniztd by the law and by public opin-
ion.
With these admissions as the premise
does not the conclusion follow that or
ganized workmen have the right to re-
fuse to work with non-uniOn Workmen ?
Such refusal is an exercise Of their own
right Of contract, and it cannot be a
violation of the right Of anybody else.
The employers right to contract is
not restricted. except in so far as all
successful competition is a restriction
upon the. unsuccessful. Competitive in
lustry is a series Of warfare, as all jur-
lists and economists perceive. The or
ganized laborers compete with the un-
organized, and if "collective bargain
ing gives them an advantage, the ad-
vantage is entirely legitimate. Collect
i've bargaining would not be resorted to
if it did not confer an advantage in the
labor movement. The employers are
free-n a legal and moral sense, OF
course-to choose between the organized
and unorganized. If they prefer the
former for economic reasons, because
they are more efficient and productive
the latter have no grievance against
them or against the workmen chosen
This is the meaning of the free market
There is no "conspiracy,' no denial o1
rights and no violation of freedom
There is free bargaining and the sue
cess Of the more intelligent, efficien
and stronger.
The organization of labor is simply
an economic method of insuring sue
cess in the struggle for existence. The
workmen who do not organize take
their chances, and If they fail. because
of their inferiority, they simply pay tn
economic penalty Of their weakness
Their right to earn a living is no
taken away from them, but when tn
supply Of labor is greater than the de
mand, some of the laborers must re
main idle. and, unfortunate as the re
suit is, the fault is often neither wit
the employers not with the Workme
whose services are purchased. Mer
chants compete for custom exactly
workmen compete for employment, an
invariably with the same results-suc
cess goes to the more intelligent an
stronger, brought about by combination
Merchants sell at such prices as the
think it safe to demand. Workme
have the same right to set the price
hot 1oI