The Minneapolis journal., 1903-03-31
The Other Side


The most useless participation In the
labor problem debate is the man who
knows it all. y The type is common We
all know the union man who looks upon
all employers as the essence Of evil; like
wise we all know the capitalist who re-
CARDS organized labor as some degrees
worse than a highway robber. In the
April number of the American Fedora
ZIONIST there is an article well worth read
ing. It is written by Henry White, ma
tional secretary of the United Garment
Workers Of America, a man who is rec
ognized as a. conservative and moderate
leader in the labor movement
z In his Introductory paragraphs MIR.
White makes the point so we'll under
stood by all students Of labor organiza-
ton, viz. that labor organization Is not
merely a hastily, assembled Industrial
army to demand better pay for its men,
bers. 1.-The student soon understands" !"
says Mr.. White, that the unions rep
resent a. working class struggle, a striv
ing upward Of that great and useful ele-
ment in society, which-with the single
exception Of the guild periodicals always
been mute and defenseless; that it i'm
plies an orderly effort, not only to wrest
concessions from the employer, but also
to secure recognition from society,";
The labors unions aim at industrial
democracy; they seek to change the pres
ent standards by which the 1aborer's s
share of production is decided. They
frankly dispute the claim OF. the employer
to have the. sole right to determine what
fair treatment shall be. 'tThis distinc-
tion, {" says Mr. White, ,.~"is fundamental,
and it, is the difference between democ-
racy and autocracy.''
Those paternalistic employers who
build clubs for their. workmen and erect
there is gratitude in worlmen. But
the workman does not ask philanthropy
or coddling, he asks for the recognition
Of what he sconceives to be his rights, and
one of these Is participation with the
employer in determining the manner in
which the, fruits of production shall be
divided ~.e -. -. =: a.
:, Mr.. White very delicately and very clev-
erly handles what he calls 'the most SEN
sitive part Of the question, viz, the re-
lation between the unionist and the non
unionist.'' The non -unionist takes no part
in the class movement except it be to
oppose it. Therefore, as either an i'm
pediment or an enemy, the union must
seek to get him out of. the way The
union man represents the workman's pro-
fessional standard, and the non-union
man is the outcast. AS to methods of
getting rid of the non union man, Mr.
White says: " ..s32. ..t~ - #
The right to ostracize or refuse to as
sociate with craftsmen who are Indifferent
to the common welfare is questioned
If that be wrong, then it is equally wrong
for professional to shun other- Of
their calling accused of "unprofessional
conduct" 1t is also wrong for merchants
to taboo other tradesmen who disregard
the ethics of their business. It would, in
fact, be wrong for anybody to refuse in
tercourse with. another because of mis-
potent moral force, moral because peace
full and because it's effectiveness depends
upon the cooperation of others 1t is
perhaps the strongest influence in uphold
| ing social standards. 4>-
AS might be expected, Mr.. White dep
recates resort to violence. He regards it
as bad policy. To indulge in force is to
arouse the santaEonism3 of society. and it's
determination. to protect itself against
such aggressions.
Mr:5White is sirgularly judicial in his
tone, considering that he is an active
lunionist himself. He takes much the
Esame view Of the question that impartial
students are coming to take.