The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-05-13
WHATNOT


II seems to me that the tendency of the
development OF union labor Is TO some
time have an organized central body with
which organized or disorganized capital
shall make its contracts instead OF en-
gaging the individual laborer
That Is the meaning OF the recent repre-
sentations made by the union of street
railway men I'm this town., for instance,
and by the teamsters' union. II seems TO
me.
The employer. however hesitates to
treat with organized labor for the reason,
as the employer puts Il. that he doesn't
care TO. and doesn't dare 10. turn over
the conduct OF his business To an outside
body lacking responsibility. A good many
people sympathize with this view al
though the labor unions naturally con-
tend that an agreement with them would
mean no such thing.
am not prepared TO say whether II
would or wouldn't. The employer usually
knows his business and the labor union
managers probably knows theirs, too.
But suppose labor was Incorporated,
with liabilities and responsibilities corre-
spending TO the privileges claimed. Then
the employer, whether an individual or
a corporation, could go to the incorpora-
ted union and make a contract for so
much labor for a certain specified time
at a certain rate. just as, today, he
makes contracts for the material needed
In his business, for beef, for wheat for
sugar, for dry goods or for other supplies
and commodities. Labor would bear the
relation of a commodity, to be contracted
for. for future delivery, or for cash, In
quantities to suit. The union, being in
corporated. would be responsible body.
with a capital stock, that may sue and
be sued and altogether be dealt with pre-
cisely as any concern Is dealt with In Its
transactions. with it's commodity or pro-
duct. In the case of the chartered union,
that commodity would be labor, men and
women.
Why not?
Except for the irregular influence of the
labor unions. labor is now purchaseable
In the open market AT varying prices and
In small and uncertain lots, so to speak.
An employer can hire labor for what
ne can get IL for, unless the union steps
in and says that none OF that particular
kind of labor can be secured except at
price which the union undertakes TO fix
and by various devises, held the market
operations OF which are subject TO such
embarrassment as may be brought about
by laboring men that are independent OF
the union organiZation--precisely as the
trusts whose assets are machinery, good
will and money are subject TO Interrupt
tion I'm their plans by Independent con-
Germs willing to do the same business at
a lesser rate.
The chief trouble seems to be that the
trusts of capital represent responsible
ity that the trusts OF labor not being, as
a rule, incorporated bodies, fail to afford
and so the former hesitate to deal with
the latter
These are vagrant thoughts enough.
have sometimes felt that there might be
something in them and that, In the de-
velopment OF organized labor, something
like the foregoing situation might be the
outcome. III IL were, the pathways or
business would be macadamzed nave
an idea that something of the sort al
ready exists I'm other countries and In
some communities In our own country
Probably some of the expert students In
organized labor could tell US about that
1t seems feasible enough. anyway.
4 friend of mine tells me. in response
10 the argument that men are too cheap
ly held, that after all there Is nothing so
cheap as money. For example. he says
you can hire a thousand dollars worth or
money for a matter OF fifty dollars
wear. whereas IL is evidently impossible
in the most severely depressed and stag
nant labor market. TO hire thousand
dollars worth OF labor for anything like
so cheap price-indeed. for precious III
tie less than n thousand dollars.
"A
hut on the whox. | incline to the belief
that it is sophistry, pure and simple. For
the reason that. before you can hire
thousand dollars worth OF money you
roust already have thousand dollars, or
the representative of II, in some forp or
another, and as rule you must have
two or three times that amount prepared
10 put Up before you can hire the thou
sand dollars worth of money. In other
words, II you have lot. little more Is
cheap.
don't believe my friends argument is
Rermain TO any question as between cap
ital and labor. IL is just a pretty trick or
debate.
on second thought IL occurs to me that
YOU cannot hire labor, any more than you
can money, unless you have the price ana
something more 10 put UP III sonic ioiin
or another-just as you have to when you
hire the money. Perhaps there is some
thing besides sophistry In my friend sug-
gestion after all
These economic questions are very puz-
zunq unless a fellow has been brought
up i'm Olneyville.
It is a nice thought 10 think, though.
that there's nothing so dirt cheap ana
easy as money.