The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-09-13
Dele eDse
Of Labor Unions
Editor of The Tribune

|
Sir Your editorial, The Good of All,
published in Fridays issue, and taking
up the corporation club against organized
la Dor. does not appear to me to be far
reaching enough in its scope TO be of any
real good to the people whom you APP
pear to be desrous of reaching.
The error into which you have fallen
is one common to all those who attempt
to discuss important economic questions
without having first gone TO the trouble
essential to a fair understanding of i'm
portant issues
You seek to enlighten the people on the
errors and evils of trades unionism, ana
yet your whole argument shows II most
dense and profound ignorance of the
subject which you have attempted to dis
cuSS.
You say that the good of each for
all, and of all for each Is the evangel Of
the twentiethy century, But YOU fail
to point to any human agency which has
come nearer the fultllment of this prop
ositiOn that has the movement of trades
unionism.
Throughout the ages of the Christian
era, and up to the advent of trades
unionism the world was blessed with just
such conditions as YOU seek to re-estab-
lish in this country Still the perfect
freedom accorded mankind during all
these centuries. and the 'recogniton of
individual responsibilities. had accom-
plshed absolutely nothing for the hui
man race.
Never in the worlds history has "''he
Good of AIR been so thoroughly eXempli
fed as it has by the results accomplished
by trades unions Through this great
| agency for good. humanity has been ele
waited. and the world has been taught
| the truth that the ''laborer Is worthy Of
his hire
1t may be true that errors have crept
into this great movement. 1t would be
more astonishing. indeed If this were not
so; but the fact remains that its record
has been such that there is scarcely room
for high minded men of intellectual at
tainments to condemn it because of the
errors which they claim and score
against the labor unions.
You critcise the "apologists of coercion
and intimidation of free labor' apparent
ly without the knowledge of the fact
that there was no such thing free la
bor till the labor union made 1t free.
Trades unionists take this stand that
having made labor profitable to the wage
earners it ought not be compelled to fight
the armies of both capital and the Skulk-
ers In the ranks Of labor.
The free labor which you are hold
ing up to the gaze of the public at the
present time is that most miserable speci-
men of all humanity which seeks to de-
stroy the labor union, and the opportun-
tiles of the wage -earners. by accepting
double pay for his labor while Il strike is
in progress.
If this is one Of the inherent rights of
| mankind. to go about the country using
the liberty of initiative" in destroying
the opportunities of others then the labor
| union has not recognized that right.
1t may be that it rejects the proposition
nf thl I1n .,t fol -l,.,.
| cause of the "unscrupulous aggression
| and tyranny of corporations 1t may he
because 1t holds that the non union work
| ingmen owe debt of gratitude 10 trades
| unionism which they ought To be COM
PEELED to repay. by refrainng from taking
strikers places even at higher rate Of
wages than the union men mHy be de-
manding. Either of these reasons ought
| to be sufficient under existing economic
| conditions.
| AS to the rights of union men to object
| to others taking their places, | hold that
| they have the same right as IL corpora
| tiOn has to attempt to prevent its EN-
ployes from joining labor union.
At various times YOU have laid much
| stress ON the violation of an agreement
existing between the G. b. Markle Com
pany and its employees. condcmning the
workingmen because they had violated
an arbitration agreement which they had
entered into with their employers,
In every instance you neglected to state
| that the signing Of this agreement WAS
| forced upon the employees of that cor
poration, that 1t was one of the Comdi-
| tons on which employment could be Sc
| cured; that 1t carried With il IA clause
| which curtaied the right of employees TO
| membership In labor union; that not
| withstanding the latter clause there was
no rcciprocating agreement ON the part
| of the company to refrain from permit
| ting an organization of coal companies
| interfering with the wage conditions of
| the men employed by that company,
All these We're facts with which you
could have, and should have, been Ia
| miliar, and to which YOU should have
given publicity in treating with this sub
| jcct.
The violation of the Markle company
| arbitration agreement has received con-
| siderable attention during the present
| strike. hut yet the real facts IN case have
never been fully given TO the public, he
| cause II would not present the same rosey
| corporation view of the situation
| Why should organized labor he held
responsible for the violation of AN agree.
! ment. when the document Itself prac-
| tically prohibited the influence of any Ia
| bor union In the adjustment OF wage con.
dtions under that corporation?
All that there was i'm the abrogation of
the Markle agreement by the working
men was the fact that they had discov-
| cred that Notwithstanding the agreement
TO arbitrate. their wage conditions were
fixed by the condition of labor surround
| ing them.
In other words II they asked for better
| conditions than men enjoyed in surround
| ing towns they found that there would
BE- no use to arbitlate tho matter. The
result was that they joined issues with
their brethren in distress. and began the
battle for The Good of AL"
simply touch on the Markle matter To