Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1903-12-20
THE "OPEN SHOP"
WEAKNESS OF THE ARGUMENT Of
FERED IN ITS SUPPORT.


What Really Is 'TudividuaI Lib
erty :"--rt,c Union shop Is Not
MonopoIy--Thc "opcn shop" Is IEi-
practicable.
Following is a liberal excerpt from
AL address On The Union Shop Versus
the Open shop" delivered before the
National Civic federation ut It's recent
Chicago meeting by Edward \. Motfctt.
editor of the BIicklayer and Mason:
Let us examine the argument put for
ward for the open shop This is that
the union shop is Il monopoly, and the
argument against it, it is claimed is
based upon individual liberty.
The cry of individual liberty as di-
fected against organizations of working
people is not new one. 1t has always
been the cry of those who have been
the first to withhold it. The attempt is
made to have individual liberty to ap-
pear as the chief concern of the people.
Is it so? Only so far as it does not men
ace the community. When unregulated
it tends TO the destruction of the free
dom of the whole. Law and govern
lnent make this self evident fact.
No one has enjoyed individual liberty
since man was in a state Of nature.
Individual liberty for men outside a
state of nature would mean anarchy.
With the growth of civilization it has
become more and more restricted. The
Declaration of Independence, upon
which our critics try to base their arSu-
ment of individual liberty, did not ex-
tend, as CroZier points out in his Ills
tory of intellectual Development" to
the red men of the great west, not
withstanding that it proclaimed that all
men are born free and with equal
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. This reference is made
simply to show that those who best
understood individual liberty We're not
unmindful of it's limitations.
And to claim that the open shop
would mean individual liberty, even in
the accepted sense, is to beg the ques
ton. Individual liberty in the case of
the workman who is not q member of
a trade union is but a mere abstrac-
ton. This unprotected workman is
free only to starve, or, at least, to ac-
cept the terms offered him and. to that
extent, help depress the common plane
of living. 1t is easy to say that if the
wages are not suitable to him he
should go elsewhere. But wherever he
may go his condition does not change,
for he has only his labor to sell. In
deed his condition becomes worse, as
with each contact with employer his
powers of resistance are lessened
Much is heard of what is called "mu-
tually satisfactory wages" Trade un-
ionists deny that there can be any such
thing between the nonunion workman
and the employer. The latter has the
vantage ground. He has possession,
which is nine points. An employer and
a job make an organization. Notwith-
standing this how often we find EN-
ployers combined to regulate wages and
hours. Sometimes the combination is
unconcealed; other times it is not. But
the practice is much more prevalent
than employers are ready to admit. 1t
won't do to say that employers have
been driven to this because Of the de-
mands of trades unions, for concerted
action upon the part of employers OBJ
tanned even more widely when trades
unions were impossible under the law
What becomes of the liberty of the
weaker party in this case of mutually
satisfactory wages" Is this freedom
Of contract? Can there be any equity
in such a contract and is it not made
under duress? The claim is made that
the superior workman finds protection
in his superior ability. But even this
workman, unless he be a genius. has
only his labor to sell and if not COM
bined with his fellows for mutual pro-
lection is quite as much at the mercy
of the employer as the workman whose
ability is commonplace.
Is the individual liberty Of which we
hear so much intended for the good of
the workman? To say that it is is to
claim that he was better off when he
was without organization. fo: the corol-
larry is that the trades union has de-
prived him of his liberty that he may
no longer accept whatever terms are
offered to him. Is it intended for the
good of the community? Show me
country today where this idea obtains,
and l will show you country that is
handicapped and poor indeed. with
wealth and luxury at the top and mis-
cry and unrest below.
So much for the argument Of individ-
ual liberty.
The union shop is not monopoly
not at Least in the sense that the New
York Stock Exchange and the Standard
OIL company and the coal trust are mo-
nopolies. This cry Of monopoly against
the trade unions Is the cry Of Wolf"
Our markets are honeycombed with
monopolies yet the efforts of the work
ing people to protect themselves are