Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-10-22

1t has raised them to a high standard of
prosperity. 1t has engineered all their
fights. Its leaders have sat in conference
with operators and with the President of
the United States. 1t has been recognized
In effect in the three-year agreement in
that Its representatives are given places on
the boards of Cancellation that have during
these three years been kept busy settling
minor disputes. Other incorpora ted indus
tries, the railroads themselves for example
recognize unions of workers and deal d.
rectly with them Why not, then. come
squarely out into the open and have a
plain. frank acknowledgment by the oper-
ators that there Is miners union, that it
stands for all the men, that none but union
miners shall be allowed to work?
Why not. indeed?
Well. take the other side Of the case
Here is man who has been for many
years the representative the ground OF
the owners of one of the largest groupe of
hard-coal mines. He sees the case broadly
benevolently and shrewdly. He is as fine a
type of the owners representative as the
miner just quoted is of his class.
For many years. said this man, to
quote whom by name would be compromis-
ing and unfair, 1.-THE tendency in our indus
trial development has been too markedly
away from the individual relationship be-
tween workers and employers. We are
drifting, and, 1 think dangerously, into
hard and fast lines of procedure. We are
not sufficiently taking into account the in
dividual human clement, and the result is
today that there is no personal touch be-
tween the owner of the mine and his men.
Who, indeed, is the owner? The stockhold-
ers of a corporation are scattered far and
wide throughout the country. There is no
individual interest sufficiently large to be
recognized the main force. Everything
is done in the name of the corporation, and
there is no wonder that the workers and
some sections of the public regard these
companies as 'soulleSS.
What l am trying to suggest is that
there is already too rigid line of cleavage
between the owner and the worker. and 1t
is dangerous to allow the union to intervene
as additional means of separation. II
the union Is recognized we have to do only
with organization, and not with men.
We can never reach our men save through
the organization. Consequently we lose all
interest in individuals and the process of
cleavage Is intensified and trouble is sure
to arise. Maybe that is sentiment in
your ears, but II Is a practical matter to
me.
with the union recognized the corpora
ton becomes. first of all, its treasurer and
collector The union will expect and Will
be In position to compel us to hold the
workers in line members of II, and TO
require them to pay their dues. now a diff
ficult process. The union will be in posi-
ton also to dictate absolutely as to the
employment of individuals. We no
longer assert our right to choose
we regard them as fit or to dismiss them as
we think them unfit. The recognition of
the union in specific terms-such terms as
the miners would lay before us IL the case
came to what is called a show-down-would
transfer to that organization all control
over the miners and helpers, all the work
ers of all classes. leaving US the duty of
administra ton, the paying of wages and
costs and the division of profits, IL any
were left.
"A good thing, perhaps? Well, 1t might
be in some circumstances. But at BEST
given the most considerable of labor lead
ers. and the wisest and the most docie or
workers, there would be trouble. And when
trouble came who would stand for 1t? We,
without power over the men? Or the
union, without responsibility? Viewed
an academic question, and not as the I'M
possible proposition in a practical situa-
ton, / might be willing to say that If the
union were to incorporate itself give guar
antees of responsibility for financial losses
and stand sponsor in terms of money liza oIl-
ity for the acts of It's members In any ana
all circumstances, the recognition Of The
union might be q good thing 1t would re-
lieve US of much of the burden of man.
agement, shifting It to other shoulders
But how long would those other shoulders
bear up uncomplainingly under this weight?
Is It human nature to expect men to de-
vote themselves to the task of labor man.
agement in these terms without big COM
pensation?
THE moment we get into the range or
this question that moment we run foul OF
the point of human desires. All men-at
least most men-want money. Some Tor
moneys sake, some for the sake of what
money will buy. And the average labor
leader is not immune from this rule. And
when he acquires power he looks for It's
equivalent In terms OF cash receipts. DO