The weekly examiner., 1901-06-01
SOME INCONSISTENCIES OF
 EMPLOYERS.

ent on the part of our employers to object to the formal acknowledgement
 of the organization of their workmen on
 the ground of interference by outsid-
 ers'' in their business, referring to the
 general officers, business agents" or
 walking delegates" of these organiza- tions. while at the same time employ ing attorneys at law themselves to
 plead in cases of disagreement in which they may be involved with others? Surely the situation is analogous. Isn't 1 lawyer, and for that matter judge and jury just as much outsiders" in case where John Doe and Richard Roe are the principals, especially interest ed, as is an official of labor union es- pecially selected by that union to rep resent cases in which it's membership is involved? Again, we find the incon- sistency of some of those employers SuDu11LI1uS
 the union to the general officers in some far-off city before daring to de- eide on them themselves, while at the same time objecting to the men who make the demand consulting their gen. eral officers as to what they may do. And we have another inconsistency in taking cognizance of these demands at all as coming from an organization and
 then refusing to acknowledge the or
 ganization as such in the matter of ne- gotiation or settlement. And yet we
 have sort of negotiation going on all
 the time at long range while refusal
 is entered upon to meet by personal contact There is a belief existent among many l well-meaning people that trade unions
 in themselves are wrong in principle ] and therefore should not exist. They believe that an employer should be free to manage his business as he wills and If the workman doesn't like his treat
 nient he should be free to leave. This seems well on the face of the subject,
 but unfortunately it is all on the face.
 He who has had experience in the matter knows different When employers had it all their own way many of them 1 weren't satisfied with the privilege of
 summarily discharging an employee, ! but entered into arrangements with
 other employers to refuse employment to him discharged. And there were
 lots of other causes that led up to the union and inter-union as we find it to- day It IS an exemplification of the truth of the lines of the poet:
 Tn spite of pride in erring reasons spite,
 One truth is clear-whatever is is right"
 Now we readily realize that this isn't
 true in the abstract. What then does
 it mean? It means, and can only mean, that whatever is is so because
 there was cause that made it so. And
 as already said, there were many causes
 that led up to the trade union in the
 various ramifcations we find it today. There is another reason why the
 workman should not be denied the privilege of having whom he wishes to represent his case in matters of dis
 pute with his employer, whether fel- low employee or otherwise. The av- craze workman is not we'll enough
 equipped for mental contest with the average employer. Whether this be his misfortune or his fault is imma-
 terial to the question. Besides, there's ] always danger of a local representa- tive incurring the displeasure of his employer by being found in this capa- city, which initiates against him in
 many ways, or is most liable to. Thus he cannot meet this employer on equal
 ground and give to his constituency the
 best that is in him, without risking the
 entailment of sacrifice for so doing.
 There may be many things done in
 the name of trade-unionism that are
 devoid of defense, yet are no part of it's
 tenets, no more than wars and devas-
 tations are parts of the Christian re- 1igion because indulged in by so-called
 doubtless many men to be found in the