The wageworker. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1904-????, 1904-12-30


The Washington correspondent OF
the Boston Transcript recently sent to
his paper an interesting article dealing
with the question of licenses for the
trades" The article was copied into
the Lincoln Daily Journal recently, and
doubtless was read by number of Lin
coin craftsmen. The correspondent adj
vocates a license system for all crafts
men, claiming that such system
would insure the employer good
workman, and he points out that this
system is even now used in modified
way. Steamboat pilots and engineers
are under federal supervision and must
have licenses. In most Of the states
plumbers must pass an examination,
and in several states engineers, ele-
vator conductors, horseshcers, and bar
hers must also have state licenses.
Skilled tradesmen will make no partic-
ular objection to the introduction Of
such q system providing they are as
sured that it will be fairly admins
tered. But it is not of ths system itself
that The Wageworker would speak,
but of one OF the arguments upon
Which the correspondent in question
bases his demand for the license sys-
tom. He says:
THE demoralizing influence of the
present practice of the trade unions, OF
reducing the good workman and rails
~, 1.F
wages and opportunity. saps the ambi-
ton of the progressive skilled laborer
subject to it, and leaves the public
practically unprotected against chron-
IL incompetents in the gui:se of trained
artisans. A good and workable license
system, on the other hand, would shift
the responsibility of public protection
from the shoulders of a trade union
committee to those of the government,
where it more properly belongs
This is the stock argument of every
opponent of organized lahor-that the
union puts the good workman and the
poor workman upon the same wage
level The opponents of organized la
Dor declare that the unions force the
employer to pay the same wage to the
incompetent union man that is paid to
the competent union man, thereby put
ting the good workman on 4 lower Level
and sapping the ambition of the pro-
gressive laborer. The argument is false
because it is based on wrong pre-
mise, and of course the conclusion
drawn from wrong premise must be
wrong. Labor union does not put all
members upon the same wage level.
They never have; doubtless they never
will. All that labor unions do in re-
gard to the wage scale is to fix mini
mum and say, III man is not COM
petent TO earn that much he is not COM
petent to work with us" And the ques-
ton OF competency is left to the en-
pioyer. There is nothing that compeis
an employer to keep al incompetent
workman. There is nothing to prevent
an employer from paying the compe-
tent workman all he is worth. The
wage scale Is a minimum wage, never
maximum wage. As a matter of fact,
IA NHS Especially Shllleu tIdues Il Ul6-
Jority OF the members are drawing
above the minimum scale. This is true
right here in Lincoln where a majority
of the job printers are drawing more
than the scale. This is because they
are worth more. Lincoln bricklayers
have minimum scale of 50 cents per
hour, and yet a. majority Of them have
been drawing fully 20 per cent more
than that all season because they were
worth it. Labor unions, instead of seek
ing to put all members on the same low
level, are constantly seeking to advance
those who take an interest in their
trade. The incompetent member soon
loses the confidence of his fellows. In
stead of dragging the good workman
Gown to the level of the poor workman
the constant effort is to make the poor
workman good workman.
Every time a union man gets into
discussion with an opponent of labor
organization he is confronted by this
old stock argument, the unions drag
the good workman down to the Level