The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1905-12-02
COMMONS WRITES on !.
CLASS DISTINCTION
The Salaried Man Is Employed
For the Sake of His Par
ticular Original Qualities.
The Wage Garner Is Paid For
Doing Duplicate and 1mitat-
i've Work Which Others Do.

more rare, than in the discussion OF
the labor question by the standard
and professional classes. The faculty
Of putting ones self in anOther's place
is really the mark Of genius and 1t
2can hardly be expected. that the or
professional man who speaks
and writes upon these questions-such
as ministers, professors, lawyers and
editors-can fully appreciate the con-
ditions of the wage Garner unless he
has actually gone through the rough
experience Of being compelled for the
sake of his family to hunt for job
and to work for living alongside of
hundreds Of similar workmen in
large modern establishment.
The wage-earner is paid for doing
duplicate and imititave work by hand,
which thousands Of competitors can
do individually.
Consider the essential difference in
condition between man who re-
ceives a salary and a man who is paid
by the day or week. The salaried
man is just as well as he. The SAL
aried man cannot be. readily dis
placed, is employed by the month Or
the year, has regular vacation on
full pay, is not held strictly to hours
beginning or quitting work, does not
lose his salary through the Interrupt
ton of a brief sickness or temporary
indisposition.
The wage Garner, on the other hand,
is hired at will, may be discharged on
a minutes notice, and his place may
be promptly filled. Sickness deprives
him of earnings, and his vacations
come at unexpected intervals when he
is out Of a job Or the factory is shut
down. If he arrives after hours his
wages are locked or he is laid off for
a day or half day. He is compelled
to come and go with hundreds like
himself, and if he breaks away from
the routine and discipline imposed by
the uniformity of duplicate work
he sees his employer without regret
put another in his place.
Consider, in the light of these diff
ferences, some of the advice offered
by the professional men to wage
earners and some Of the criticisms
passed on labor unions. Says one
critic:
Here is a large non-union estab-
lishment employing thousands of men,
and all the heads Of departments and
many of the partners have been pro-
NOTED from the ranks. Here ability
is recognized and rewarded, and this is
much better than. uniformity imposed
by unions.
ot oil iS
the proportion of men for whom there
is room for promotion above the ranks.
An establishment of 10000 people
would seldom have more than ' 500
men, or one in 20 employed as fore
men, superintendent or managers,
above the ranks of wage-earners. The
mere necessities of production require
full 30 per. cent Of the force to be
continually engaged in mechanical
work. And those who are. promoted
are selected, not for their qualities as
artisans, but for their qualities as
overseers, disciplinarians, or inventors.
Promotion takes them out Of the
class as wage-earners, It is for the
sake of the 80 per cent who remain
in the ranks that the union Is organ
lied. and it must be with reference
to the qualities, or lack Of qualities
that keep them in the ranks that the
methods should be judged.
It would no doubt be beautiful
vanced to that brotherhood Of freedom
and individual reward enjoyed by the
professors of a college faculty which
President Elliot has so notably out
lined as the proper goal to be set up
for the hopes Of the working classes.
But not until inventive genius has
supplanted manual labor by auto
matte machinery and not until the
mental attributes Of college professors
are diffused among the 80 per cent
who are manual workers will it be
possible to criticise the motives and
methods of wage-earners from the
lofty standpoint of professors.
Take the attitude toward non-union-
lists. The labor organization that at
tempts to raise wages or shorten hours
in one establishment is met by the em7
ployer with the contention that he
cannot continue in business If he pays
more than his competitors. Then un-
ion then, is compelled to organize
nearly all employees in a trade and
to gain an advance along the entire
line if it gains any advance at all.
On this account the -unionist
is a constant menace to all men who
do his kind of work. When the union
therefore refuses to work with a non
unionist, it is a parallel case with a
church which refuses to have dealings
with a hereto, as intimated by col
lege professor in a recent article?
If it were necessary that all citi-
zens should belong to one church, as
it perhaps were necessary when Pro-
testant nations were at war with pa
pal nations on questions of political
or ecclesiastical supremacy, then the
hereto would be public menace.
AS long as the non-unionist can
| readily take the place OF the unionist
he, too is a menace to the standard
of living of all men employed in his
trade, and it is not surprising that he
should be the object of every discrim.
nation that the union can lawfully
bring to bear, and even Of attacks