The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1903-05-09
R|EIA!TION'0F THE IINDIIIIUAL
'0IuDUSPRY AND Production.
(8y Professor W.
nell University 80

of the great modern strikes and
lockouts we have had illegal at
tacks upon individuals. I have never
yet heard any employer Of labor or
any of the great labor leaders who
would openly say that such illegal acts
were to be advocated or to be directly
defended; nevertheless, it is not uncom-
mon, to have these attacks ex-
planned at times even to have them ex-
cused on the ground that in time of
war" such things, however regrett-
able, were inevitable, were to be ex-
pected. In war, it is said, private prop
erty even of non combatants, is sacri-
feed; treachery is not merely allowed:
it is even praiseworthy. And so, it is
he said, inasmuch as strike or a lock-
out is like war, these unfortunate oc-
currences, are at any rate to be expect
ed, and possibly to be excused.
We know, also, that the late men,
bers Of trades unions have been at
times forbidden to join the militia, be-
cause they might be asked to fight
against their brethren. They have
sometimes, on the other hand, been
urged to join the militia, in order that
they might fight against their breth-
ern If called upon.
this morning, contrariwise that the nor
NAL relations Of capital and labor are
those Of peace, and the real interests
of both are harmonious.
We have then this analogy of the re-
lations of capital and labor to war and
peace. 1t is, perhaps, worth while to
analize this curious but false analogy.
How does it happen that on the one
hand peace is said to be a normal con-
dition, while on the other hand acts like
those of war are justified?
The relations between the capitalist
and the laborer are two-fold. In pro-
ductiOn their interests are in the same
direction. Both parties wish to have
the largest, the most valuable product
possible, that there may be more to di
vide between them. 1t is for the inter-
est for both to pull together. If one is
unwilling to pull his full share the
other naturally resents it; and it might
be that under these circumstances a
larger share Of the smaller total pro-
duct would be better for the person in
jured
On the other hand, in the division of
the product, capital and labor naturally
pull in different ways. The more the
employer has the less is left for the
laborer. There is where the conflict
comes. Each party wants all that he
can get without hindering progress too
much. If the other is too grasping it
may be that it would be better to check
production somewhat than to let him
have all he asks for. But there, in the
division Of the product, is where the
conflict comes. -" =. - = -: III III
AS L understand the matter, while
trade unions have education and benefit
features, they are organized primarily
for the purpose. of Strengthening the
individual 'laborer in this natural nor
NAL contest with the employer for his
share Of the product. 1t is said that
the workman standing alone has not
an even chance. He must take what
wages are offered him. Of course, if
dissatisfied, he may quit work; he is a
free man. He is right, in my Judgment,
in his feeling. He has the spirit of a.
free man, which all ought to have in
this country.
The laborer claims also that the union
Is the champion of the cause of all la
boreres, n-unionists as we'll as union
lists. Gains in wages, fewer hours of
labor, protection Of machinery, better
sanitary conditions, are all largely the
result Of the unions efforts. In these
benefits ALL non-unionist and unionist,
alike share.
When in the conflict for larger
nf ho e,4r
workman turns and joins the employer,
he destroys the advantage of the labor
err and turns against his class. His
fellows natural feels that he is ,disloyal,
false to his trust. They call him from
this falst war analogy a traitor Their
class feeling does not distinguish be-
tween their class and society as a
whole, their class and the State. The
strikers feel that he is a traitor and
that the punishment of traitor would
not be too severe. The feeling in nat
ural enough; the conslusion is wrong,
rulnously wrong as all strong labor
leaders know. A class, however inn
portant, is not a whole society or a
State. It is only an important part,
possibly the most important part of
the State. Legally the strike breaker
is right; he may work for whom he
pleases; morally he may be wrong, he
may be right.
The question Of right or wrong in his
act depends upon his motive. He may
be a conscientious; high-minded indi-
vidualist who objects to the trammels
of any organization, who does not wish
to be hampered by the rules of any
union, because he thinks it is better,
not merely for himself, but for society,
that each man stand as an individual.
If he is that kind Of a strike breaker
/ he is morally right, however mistaken
his views may be. He is acting f1om
worthw motive and deserves only re-
spect. If, on the other hand, as is per-
haps, usually the case, he is merely a
selfish opportunist siezing every chance
to profit for himself even at the expense
OF his fellows, taking the good they
may bring him through their action,
and not being willing to sacrifice any,
thing in return, he may be within his
legal rights in acting as strike break
er, but he is a selfish wretch, worthy
If fha r011fa >urIni ~, ho.,oaos.,or