The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1906-11-24
BRITISH LABOR UNION |.
=: SOMETHING LIKE OURS
Frank Foster Gives His 0bserva.
ton in Report to A. F. Of L.
Meeting.
Reports on Movement of British
Workers For Better Econ
omic Means.

gives his observations as follows:-
The question has frequently been
asked me, What are the essential
points Of differences between the
British and American labor move
ments? Which is the clearer in aim,
the superior in method, the better. in
general development?
My opportunities of observation
have been altogether too limited to
warrant an attempt at giving a dog
matte answer to these queries. Some
parent to even superficial student
Of the situation, and of these there
may be noted
Ffrst-The greater uniformity of the
British movement. Organization, after
ALL must reflect the character and
temperaments of the rank and file Of
their membership, and the peculiar
qualities which distinguish the indi-
vidual Briton are apparent in the la
Dor movement of his country The
British trades union is homogeneous.
Men speak the same tongue, inherit
the like traditions, have been brought
up in the same standards of living
and of thought There is no such
diversity of background in a British
labor convention as in our own FEEDER
alton of Labor, where the PHILOSOPHERS
Of the Teuton, the Celt, the Latin and
the Slav struggle for supremacy with
those Of the English speaking race
Consequently, the programs of the
British movement are less cratic,
in some respects, have greater con-
tinuity than those of our American
unions
Secondly-The longer experience of
most Of the British unions has served
to remove from the stage of discus
sion many minor issues about which
American trades unions by no means
| agree and about which they have no
settled policy. In a national conven-
ton this serves to expedite business,
curtails superfluous oratory AID
permits elaboration to concentrate
| upon methods of action rather than
to be dissipated about distractions
Th1rdly-The structure of the Brit
ish Government, under which a simple
act of Parliament can change condi-
tons existing for centuries, presents
ferent field to work, legislatively, from
that in which the American unionist
must operate. Here we have rigid
constitutional limitations, both FEEDER
al and local-large powers reserved to
each Of the commemorative, which
must severally be influenced in order
to accomplish the legislative reforms
sought by organized labor. Although
the British workman Is emphatically
practical individual, yet he is look
Ing to Parliament today for many
things which the American unionist
would not think of seeking to obtain
legislatively, and if the same legislative
machinery existed there as here it is
to be doubted If the British workman
would pursue the same policy as at
present.
The British unionists long ago learn
ed the value Of large treasures and
liberal benefits in the policy Of their
unions. The so-called new union
ism," relying upon the strike and the
oa1lot' has not turned away the faith
Of the great bulk of the rank and file
from that policy. But the Taft-Vale
decision threatened to destroy the
financial power Of the union, in so
lar as 1t could be used along lines of
economic resistance. 1t was the fear
OF this result, rather than the impulse
OF the radical and revolutionary
forces, which has caused the late pol
1tical upheaval. There were also con-
tr1butory influences of a general pol
1t1cal nature which swelled the tide of
| the Independent political movement.
Provided, as seems likely, that a salts
factory trades disputes bill Is passed
by Parliament when it reassembles, 1
venture to predict that British trades
| unionism will not follow the leader
| ship Of Keir Hardie in his effort to
| identify trades unionism with the In
dependent Labor Party.
John Burns, as is wei known, is in
| direct opposition to the policy of
| Hardie, Macdonald ct al, and when
! all Is said, John Burns stands as the
great representative British labor lead
er, who has achieved results in the
field Of labor legislation, and, abused
by the ultra-extremists, he has the
| confidence Of press and people in a
most remarkable degree.
To sum up this phase Of the ques-
: ton, it may be said that in Britain, as
in America, there are trades unionists
who would rely chiefly upon legisla-
tive action for the Improvement Of la
Dor conditions, but they are by no
means in the majority; that the
majority there, as here, would Jealous
~ guard against merging the economic
machinery Of the unions with that Of
any political party, and that while
they believe that every trades-union-
list should use an Independent ballot,
they recognize the truth Of this prop
| osition as unassailable-that the in
dependence Of. each trades unionist
must be guaranteed to use his ballot
| as he sees fit If the economic ef-
fectiveness Of the union is to be MAIN
| tanned.
In a general way, should say that
the American movement is more het-
erogeneous than. the: British, has
greater mobility, is doing more in the
way Of advancing wages and shorten
Ing hours, ranks at least as high, II
not higher, in the quality of~its lead
ership, IL less infected with 'polit-
ical superstition" and, considering the