Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1904-12-02
OPEN SHOP QUESTION
ATTITUDE OF TRADES UNlONlSTS
TOWARD EMPLOYERS.

Those VINO rrltiClSc TRACES ullonS,
their policies and methods frequently
take delight in building UP man of
straw aud then tearing apart his anat-
omy and demolishing the fras..,..,s.
A prominent trade journal in com
menting on the open shop question 50
misreprescnts trades unioniSm, makes
many statements that are unfair ana
misleading concerning the attitude OF
trades unicns, says Martin +. Murphy
in the Buffalo Express. Here is what
the Journal in question says;
At a recent meeting of the National
Civic federation the labor leaders Iroih
all the trades represented focailzeu thelr
elouuence upon this one point. Mltchell,
Gompers, White, Molfat, Sullivan ana
half Il dozen others came with carefully
prepared papcrs showing why the open
shoO is i.upossible and why organized
labor demands its abandonment. It was
an interesting symposium and hlstruc-
tive withaI, not because the labor leaders
said anything new or useful ON thls SUD-
ject but as showing that the word mas
been passed down the line that the exist
ence of the present labor organizations
are dependent upon forcing the employers
to enter into agreements providing that
nonunion men shall be excluded from
employment in shops in which union men
graciouSy consent to work and against
which, so long as it may please them 10
draw support therefrom, they will not
launch the jor communication of the
| combined strike and boycott.
It states that the officers of trades
unions ami the unions themselves de-
pend for their existence upon their abll-
ity to force the employer to agree that
none but union workmen shall be en-
ployed. and here is where the straw
man is pushed to the center of the
stage and the editorial lights fscnsed
upon him. Any unbiased person who
has read the able papers presented by
Messrs. Mitchell, Gompers, Mo.fatt and
Sullivan will fail TO see wherein they
have directly or indirectly stated or
| inferred that it was necessary for or
ganzcd labor to force the employer to
agree that only union labor should be
employed if the trades unions were to
be pcrpetuated. They gave weighty
reasons why organized labor should
have control of department if the
union was to be held responsible for
! the carrying out of the terms OF an
agreement that had been entered into
with the employer and also called at
tention to the full and unhaml cred OPP
portunity offered to the proprietor OF
the so called open shop to lay Off those
workmcn who held office or took an ac-
tive part in their union or completely
clear his shop of all union workmcn
should he so desire. They advanced
the idea that the trades unionists had
the same equal right to refuse 10 work
with Il nonunion man rs the employer
had TO employ whom lie pleased
In the excerpt quoted the impression
| is given that the trades unions aim is
to force the employer 10 agree to EN-
nloy union labor only. and this is where
our position on the question il placed
in such Il light as TO be both mislcad-
| ing and ullfavorahlC. The effort is
made TO represent the trades unions as
endcavoring to compel tic employer 70
| sign away his constitutional right ana
privileges by forcing him TO agree to
hire only union help and to have the
! unions appear as opposed to personal
| liberty of action. The Impression Great
| ell is that the unions are carrying out
! 4 dictatorial and dOmineering policy
and. in plain English. trying TO tell the
employer whom he can and whom he
cannot hire and how he shall manage
his establishment.
That the trades unions have assumed
this attitude is not true. We recognize
the employers undoubtcd and undis-
putcd right to employ those who are
agreeable to him and reserve to our
selves the privilege of refusing to work
with any one who is Objectionable to
us. He may manage his plant accord
ing TO his own ideas of right and
wrong, and if these do not suit us we
may object and quit him If we believe
If necessary. The effort to misrepre-
sent us is Il shallow one, and some of the
arguments advanced SAVIOR Of hypSc-
-isy. The meat of the matter lies in
the employers objection to the opposi-
ton he meets from workmen who are
cndeavoring 10 better their conditions.
Some employers desire to enjoy an I'M
hampercd opportunity Of regulating the
hours of labor. rate of wages and the
conditions under which the work shall
be performed and resent rs an i'll
fringement of their liberty any at
tempt the workman may make to nave
II voice MS to the value of his labor and
the conditions under which it will be
sold. Thousands of employers who
employ none hut trades unionists have
never been asked to agree TO hire none
but union workmcn, and 1t is the eX-
ception rather than the rule when TINS
is done. The membership of trades
unions from a mere handful of years
ago has grown into the millions. 1t has
grown in intelligence and power and
has become most important factor
in protecting and advancing civiliZa-
tlon 1t has been able to bring about
advances in the wage rate, shorten the
hours of labor and give the working