The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1911-05-12

One often hears the question asked,
How often is a minority in union
Justified in opposing the will of the ma
jority and how far has a minority a
moral right to carry that opposition p
How often is it the case that a majority
vote decides a certain question and a
stubborn minority kicks over the traces
and opposes by every means short of
open mutiny the majority decision. 1t
appears to us that there are certain
well defined rules that should apply in
all cases where men disagree. And men
who are not mere mental automatons
but have minds of their own will dis
agree to the end of the chapter There
are certain principles of unionism, which,
for lack OF better term, We may call
fundamental" We concede as funda-
mental the absolute right of the work
man to set the price at which he will
sell his labor power. We contend that
he alone has the right to set limit
upon his hours of employment, The la
Dor power to produce is the one com
modify which the worker should own
absolutely. We say should" because
too often he doesn't own it. We con
tend as fundamental the right of the
worker to bestow or withhold his pur-
chasing power as he sees fit. We hold
as fundamental and necessary a close
relation Of harmony between the work
ers in one industry and the workers in
all others. We single these few princi-
pies out of several that might be named
because they are widely understood by
Jnioni-ts. There are others nearly as
important. Any violation or attempted
violation Of any of these fundamental
principles by d majority the minority
has right, more it has a duty, to OPP
pose to the end and by every legitimate
means. If a minority is absolutely CON
WINGED that an official is betraying his
trust and Is being shielded by a ma
jority-an occurrence so rare that it is
hardly worth mentioning minority
has a right again to protest as emphati
cally as it can against the action of the
majority in that particular case. And
that. tu our way of thinking, ends the
right Of a minority to oppose after
question has been decided by major
ity vote. All organizations lay down
certain rules of procedure. rules of con
duct, to facilitate intelligent transac-
tious of its affairs. Surely a minority
has no right to put up a continual fight
on these rules when they are the result
Of the intelligence and thought Of the
majority members Remember that our
organizations are the most democratic
institutions in the country. There is
no committee on rules dominated by
an Uncle joe Every member has the
same right as every other to use his
voice and vote and the same opportu-
nifty. Questions often arise involving
matters Of policy or expediency. A Ger
tain end is to be attained which all de-
sire. A division of sentiment arises as
to the best means to be employed to
gain that end. A majority decides on
a certain policy. 1t doesn't meet with
the approval Of some, but it appears the
best to the larger number. Very plainly
it is the duty Of the minority to bow to
the will Of the majority. They all want
the same thing in the end. If the mi
nority goes into its corner and sulks, or
takes the bit in its teeth and throws
obstacles in the way Of the majority, it
is certainly departing very far from the
code of ethics which should govern every
union organization. Perhaps the whole
situation may best be summed up in
the following quotation: in essentials,
unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all
things, charity"
- t.-...-.r,, - 5 Z, ,srufcipal wafer