The daily morning journal and courier., 1903-01-15

usual for a little while. Then some day, when he is rushing work 10 meet his contracts, he finds everything sud denly brought to a standstill. Several demands are made of him by the union. Some of them he may regard as reason able. and be ready at once to grant; others of them. for thv sake of prevent ing a hold-up. he would be willing to arbitrate; but over the bill of griev- ances he finds written large this da- mand: ''Recognition of the Union" What does that mean ill his business? The phrase is elastic as rubber band. and all kinds of things may be tied Hp in it. He wants to know exactly what is demanded of him; what he may r2a- sonab.y admit, or what he cannot allow without giving up either his own man agement or the rights of other men ln his employ. What can employers gen orally concede to labor unions without putting prosperity itself in pawn? These questions he must consider. and ought to judge firmly, in deciding to what extent he will recognize the union. And he will not find it an altogether easy problem. If he looks only at the itENCGSltSs anu Nt@ll4ACS C'4+OAN- just now to offer any resistance to OF Canzed labor, he will postpone the judgment, and also in gaining the pres ent world he may lose his own future industrial salvation. What, actually and practically, does recognition of the union mean for him? Dealing with men collectively-grant that. But what guarantees are offered for the fulfill ment of collective bargain? The Taff Vale decision in England has fixed re- sponsibility for damages upon labor unions; but that has not yet been de- clared to be law in this country, and MT Gompers opposes the incorporation of unions. The employer may hesitate 10 recognize a scheme of collective bar gaining until that point shall be well settled. What. he inquiras furth5r will recognition of the union mean in reia- ton to the productiVeness of labor, or the necessary discipline of the shop! He may have to do business on small margin, and he knows that the profit comes in from the last hour of labor and the last ton manufactured. The effect upon productiveness is very es- sential part of his problem of the rec ognition of the union, which may seem so simple to the social philosopher or the benevolent clergyman. Admit that it may be a good thing all around to establish a minimum living wage; will it also be a profitable result to render impossible maximum wage for those who can earn it? Grant that union may act with mutual charity, and even with some seIf-sacrifice on the part of the better Workmen, when it makes it a labor misdemelnor to rush broth er," and votes to eXpel miners who fill more than their share of cars; or con- siders it to be rating" if union man works faster or produces more than the rule of the union permits-What must be the effect of this procedure upon the productive capacity of the wOrkmen, or upon the employers ability to compete successfully in the market, and to pay a living wage? Are economics and morals here at strife? Is it the best mutual aid among men to diminish the output? May not a truer charity be based on broader justice, where every man from the bottom to the top Of a business is not only permitted, but stimulated, to do his best? And there are some further questions which the employer will find himself in close con- tact with when called upon to settle the question whether he will recognize the union He is held responsible in heavy damages fer losses of life or limb, which might be avoided by reasonable care on his part; consequently he must retain power to discharge summarily any man whom he judges to be int on- petent. His responsibility involves all the rights as well as ob igatinns of eff ! cient discipline; how far will recoEni- ton of the union limit and lower his right and power in the management Of his bus ness, while it q es not dAcreas , one bit his responsibility, morally, le- galIy or financially? .Ior is this the end of this seemingly very simple prob lem of recognition of the union. If he makes a bargain collectively with a large number of men, must he thereby forego his liberty of seeking out indi- | vidually the best men he can find for special excellence of workmanship? Or in recognizing organized labor must he by the same act deny all right of indi- ] what extent moreover, by his subjec- tion to the rules of labor union, will he be enjoined from vigilant personal selection of his brightest and most ca pablo men, and restrained from opening the way up for them to higher positions and more profitable work? Suppose this employer, having risen himself from the bottom, desires to help smart young men, who are not afraid of hard
 work, to rise, as he himself rose in for
 mer times, before labor was made sub feet to union rules; can he carry out this laudable ambition unimpeded, if
 he consents to unioniZe his business
 These are some only of the difficulties
 which lie coiled up within that innocent demand of recognition of the union.
 1 Now, suppose the employer decides tt
 face the issue, declines to submit to the dictation of the foreman of the union in the employment or dischargH of men and while he recognizes the right of a union to mind it's own business he re- fuses to recognize all the rules of the local and national union in the conduct
 of his own business. We know what will happen next.
 The union orders a strike. The more sober-minded men submit to it, be"aust they cannot help it; the more radica spirits, who may not need good steady
 wages to meet the mortgages on theil
 homes, run the meetings of the unior