New-York tribune., 1907-07-09
LABOR AND MUNI0IPAD OWNERSHIP

q
Tho investigators Of tho National Civic Fed
Grafton have made their first reports upon
municipal ownership These reports bv Pro-
Iess0r Commons and Mr.. Sullivan, deal with
municipal ownership only as 1t affects labor.
That is an important point of view from which
TO consider the question, for efforts are con-
stantly being made in this country TO interest
union labor In favor Of municipalizatton. Each
OF the investigators began with q predisposi-
ton IN regard to municipal ownership, and
they end with their attitudes unchanged, one
taking a much moro favorable view than the
other.
There are some points upon which thew are
agreed, however. One is-and IL will doubtless
prove interesting to labor in general-that there
is practically no difference in the wages, hours
or conditions or service between those munich
pally employed and those privately employed
Cities generally pay the prevaillng-that ts TO
say, the union-rate OF wages. In other words
iabors opportunities of earning are no better
under government employment than under
private employment, and municipal undertak
lngs are SO general and have been SO long In
operation in England that it is fair to deduca
this as a conclusion. The investigators aDnar-
emily further agree that municipal empIoyment
weakens the unions. The unionist In CITY en-
ploy has different interests from tho unIonIst I'm
private employ; he loses zeal for his union and
neglects TO pay his dues He tends to form
municipal employees union, which Is moro In
politics than in anything else. Saws Professor
Commons. who is rather favorable to mrnfcinal
ownership:
1t invites into membership all enployes of
municipalities. and since they are nearly all
eligible to other unions. evidently the aim of
TINS organization ~ to separate a privileged
class of workmen and to do this through the
political power Of those whom they abandon
1t weakens other unions while building ON their
support.
These are considerations that chiefly inter
est labor, and especially union labor. for II
will naturally ask itself whether It will better
It's condition and strengthen unionism through
the municipalization of the public service The
extent to which municipal ownership puts the
public service employees into politics interests
the citizens at large. The two investigators
agree that 1t does put them into politics. but dis
agree as to how much. Mr.. Sullivan finds If
a great evil in this country and much less of
an evil IN England Professor Commons thinks
that the evil Is exaggerated. There is politics
in the employment Of labor under private
ownership anyway, he points out, and 1t can
be practically excluded under public owner
ship by the recognition Of unionsm. This part
Of his argument fails, however, for politics can
be much better excluded from the public SER
vice by the recognition of unionism under pri-
vate ownership than by such recognition under
public ownership. And again, according to Pro-
fessOr COmmons's own report, the unions of
municipal employees tend to become unions for
political purposes only. to control the election
of counclmen and city officers and to dictate
the choice of their own superiors The political
machine ceases to be able TO find Jobs for
henchmen in the public service, and to that
extent politics Is stopped by Professor Com
monss device Of unionizing municipal employees: