The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1909-07-22


ploycrs organizations are so deeply i'm
pregnated with the spirit of monopoly
and completely given over to class bit
| terness as to make friendly intercourse
between them and labor organizations i'm
possible.
The interests of unprivileged employ
crs and the interests of hired working
men are really identical not only with
reference to the narrow relation of en-
ployers and employees, but with refer
ence also to the wider and more general
relation of buyer and seller. 1t is only
the bencfciarics of special privileges that
are essentially inimical to either. Yet
beneficiaries of special privileges, mas
querading legitimate business men,
and often in some degree really legiti
mate business men, dominate the existing
employers organizations, and, while play
ing their own predatory game with their
innocent associates, fan the flames of
class hatred by constantly emphasizing
instances of exaspcrating methods of Ia
Dor organizations.
Labor organizations do resort to bad
methods dnunabe methods as the
National Association of Manufacturers,
assembled on the 18th ult., in New York.
expressed it in the words of one of its
members and with cheers from the rest.
But so do employers organizations resort
to '' 'damnable methods.'' The National
Association of Manufacturers itself is no
exception. Human nature explains it all.
And those "damnabc methods are not
to be improved by the irrcconcilables and
impOssiblities of either sect or organiZa-
tions. 1t is indeed to be said for Ia
Dor organizations that they are, on the
whole, better disposed than the employ
ers under present control.
What the best interest of both EN-.
ploycr and hired man requests-those OF
both classes who earn their livng--is
that they get together the basis of a
genuine purpose to do the fair thing all
around. There would be no difficulty, 50
far as the labor organizations con
cerncd, for they for the most part want
to be fair. AS a mass they are com
posed of farmindcd men and women:
more so in dealing with employers
ganiZations, candor compels us to say
than employers organizations are in
dealing with them. Neither would there
be any difficulty 50 far as employers or
ganizations are concerned if the mem
bership in general would put aside such
influence their own little special privi
leges may exert and close their ears to
the unfair suggestions of overbearing
monopolists among them. Employers or
CARNATIONS that wanted only n square
deal with workingmen would find no other
difficulty in cooperating with labor
ganiZations upon a basis of justice than
he difficulty which they themselves have
fostered-the difficulty that would nat
urally arise from distrust by labor or
ganizations of the good faith of en-
ployers organizations.
| Ism t the time nearly at hand for en-
ployers' organizations to take more
| considerate view of labor organizations?
| Hash t the day for vituperation gone
| by? Are there not enough far minded
| men in the employers organizations to
| turn them back from their monopolistic
| tendencies and toward friendly inter
course with workingmen? What if it
should prove for time that the labor
organizations won t respond i'll the same
spirit: Ism t the responsibility upon the
employers considering their greater op-
portunites for cultivating the amenities
of life Let them set example before
they condemn workingnen for spurning
| it. And first let them oust their own mo-
nopolies.