New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1904-06-15
BOYCOTT BIG FIRMS
lContinned from Second Page

sympathetic strike or direct their mem
bers to refuse to handle boycotted
firms productions. Complaints against
the ssoffending" unions, examination and
denomination threats to 'sget even, and
all the rest of of it follow and,
worst of all, aserious obstacle arises to
block the way of those who are striving
to secure and MAINTAIN solidity in the
labor movement.
1t is then murmurs of discomfort are
heard among the strikers. whats the
use of the unionY' Those fellows are
not union men o: they would quit
handling that stuff" "Why dosen't each
union levy a small assessment to hold
US up2' 81 don't see what building
trades council or trades assembly is
for if it can't win this strike for u.s."
whats the officers of the State FEEDER
alton of Labor doing, and Why don't the
A. F. of L. enfoce the boycott all over
the country?"- and so on AID INFINITUM.
1t would be amusing, did it not concern
such serious matter-the bread and
butter of probably hundreds and some
times thousands-of men, women and
children. That is indeed a serious
matter, and the man who counsels action
that is certain to affect the bread and
butter supply of his fellows assumes
one of the most serious respo nsibllities
that can rest on any one.
The probability of defeat, should a
union become involved in strike with
in few months after its organization, is
so strong that almost all of the National
or international unions have adopted
constitutional provisions disciphning
unions that 60 on strike within certain
period after its organization. The Ameri-
can Federation of Labor also discounten-
ances strikes by newly formed unions.
This should also be the policy of this
State Federation of Labor. The parent
bodies were obliged to adopt this policy
because of costly experience, consequent
ly the novices in trade unionism who
advocate strikes before the ink on the
charter is dry, are counseling action that
the men who have onilt up the grand
movement we have today, consider
suicidal.
Common sense not infrequently sug-
gests that it would be folly for certain
unions to engage in sympathetic strikes
every time they were called upon for
assistance. The members of the union
on strike do not stop tn consider the
conditions of the union called upon.
The Transfers of Chicago offered a
good illustration of the effect of engaging
in sympathetic strikes whenever called
upon. Probably the men of no other
callings come in contact with MEM
bers of as many unions as do the teams
tiers, and in Chicago it became the GUS
tom to call upon them. They general
ly responded to the call, with the
obvious result they were continually on
strike to assist other unions. No or
ganization can long stand such strain
as that, and the Chicago teamsters we're
finally compelled to reverse their policy.
Conditions may arise, however. that
would justify our organizations in
engaging in sympathetic strikes but we
must be conceded the right to pass
judgment on such questions rather than
the union That asks for the sympathetic
strike. I submit that the best policy to
pursue, before calling strike, is to call
upon unions likely to become involved
and learn definitely what assistance, if