The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-07-10
SOME rAIsE .nrAgoNrNo.

SOME FALSE REASONING.
 One whidden Graham, wfitine in The New York Post oh the questions of unions ana union labor orsahisatsons. falls into . singular tonfasicn of ideas and facts In his attempt to defend all the intoler- anee and excesses of such organizations. Take this as an example:
 "the right 10 labor' risinsaissing that in so far as trades unions prevent ron- unfon workers from securing employment they are infrtneink on the rixhts ef such nonsense talked and written about the woes of the honest ,lsbosins naan. cruelty aspfiysd of ah opportunity to get a live 1 a matter of'fact. if the unemployed John Smith. non.union iaborer. takes the place of Winiam Jones. unionist, who has been man gets a job. while another loses one. Sympathy over poor Smith and his hum gry wife and children would be more to who also has . family dependent on him.
 The writer seems unable or unwilling to see the difference between the cases of Smith and Jones, and to show the ab- surdity of his reasoning let us put 1t in another form. -f3uppose Jones voluntarily gives up his job and removes to another place: could he have any cause of com piaint If Smith secured the job? We sup post Mr. Graham would hardly blame Smith. yet the cases are analogous. In the case supposed by the writer. Jones had. a good job and was making living for himself and family. but. acting under I the orders of local union or of some 1 walking delegate. he quits work and leaves his place open. wAat right has he to object or complain. if Smith takes the work? Jones has no, mortsase on the position. nor has he either a moral or legal. right to say who shall or shall not All the position he abandoned.
 It is false reasoning to say that Smith
 displaced" Jones, for he does nothing of the kind If man riding in a car. for example. gives up his seat and leaves | the car, what right has he to object when
 another man takes the seat? The cases
 are identical in principle. We may sym
 pathize with the wife and children of
 Jones because he is out of work and his
 family may suffer, but. in fact his being out of work Is his own fault. If he vol
 untariIy places himself in position where
 he must quit work at the dictation of
 others. sympathy is wasted on him. how
 ever keenly we may feel for those who
 are dependent on him.
 The writer further says:
 The truth about the right to work Is that the whole labor. problem Is simply one of too many workers for the limited number of jobs. If this were not so the unions would win every tine since if all no scass to 0saS saRs sss 'neLs pIscss woaaa of strikers. And herein lles the dishonesty of the pretsuded defenders of the right to work"
 Here is another fiisconcaption or mis- statement of the case. and 1t shows the dishonesty or unfatyaess of some of the union labor methods. If there are more workers than there are jobs, then some must be Idle. and the jobs should be given to those best aualifed ana most deserv- ing. To argue that all the good workmen belong to union organizations and all the inferior ones remain out Is not true. When there Is q demand for iaborers, all who are qualified should have an equal chance to get work. and to drive a man away from his work. or to prevent him from getting work merely because he has refused to sell his liberty of action is unfair, un-Ameriean, tyrannicai and unjust.
 The truth is. the theory of labor union. or the practice. is founded on a wrong conception of the rights of American cit- izens. That working men have right to organize for their own good is not denied. but the converse of that prope- sition is equally true, and those who do not wish to join the union have the right to remain out without forfeiting any of the privileges of citizenship. To prevent men from working for a living because
 they are not union men Is one form of mob law and one kind of robbery. That
 Is the plain truth about it.
 |