The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1914-09-04
COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.
Likely to Work Injustice to Both Sides
In Industrial Disputes.

Likely to Work Injustice to Both Sides
In Industrial Disputes.
In a recent speech Secretary Of La
Dor Wilson declared against compul-
sorry arbitration. lie made the point
that where men are compelled to ac-
cept obnoxious conditions it was con-
fscation for the employer and serfdom
for the wage worker. The latter, he
insisted. was further opposed to COM
pulsory arbitration for the reason that
there was clear cut dividing line be-
tween profit and loss which the en-
ployer can show but this was not true
with the worker. whose living stand
ards might be lowered and yet exc out
bare existence. The speaker brought
out these points as follows:
In proposing that as a means of adj
iusting Industrial disputes | do not
want to be misunderstood. | do not
want to be understood as proposing
compulsory arbitration. because | do
not believe in compulsory arbitration
rs applied to industrial disputes. In
the first place it may do an injustice to
the employer if yon have compulsory
arbitration by giving an award which,
if he is compelled to operate under,
would in time absorb all of his capital.
1t means that the whole subject matter
of trade relations between employer
and employee may be thrown open at
the suggestion Of one of the sides to
the controversy, and when you submit
the whole question Of relation to
board of arbitration there Is posi-
bility-I do not say that it is a prob
ability-but there is possibility that
the award may be Of such a nature
that If it is lived up to and the employer
continues to operate-and if he is not
compelled to operate then it Is not
compulsory arbityation-it would ulti-
mately take all Of his capital. Upon
the other hand, an award might be Of
fered under which, II the employees
continued to work. they would be In
little better condition than that Of
serfS.
There is one other very strong rea-
son why compulsory arbitration should
not be entered into. and l am free to
state that that is purely from the
standpoint of the wageworker, in that
it would be unfair to the wageworker
to have compulsory arbitration. There
is a clean cut dividing line between
show from his records to any board Of
arbitra ton that sits upon any question
in dispute. He can demonstrate from
his records through that clean cut di-
viding line between profit and loss the
conditions and circumstances and the
terms under which it would be a loss
to him to operate. That would act as
a protection against any unfair de-
cision being rendered as it applied to
the employee. But the standard of liv-
ing is not clean cut stationary line.
The line of living is flexible. 1t may
be either raised or lowered and the
workman still live.
so the workmen can have no clean
cut dividing line to protect them
against any unfair decision on the part
of arbitrator, and the only way in
which either of them can be protected
liz arbitration is by having the terms Of
the arbitration. the conditions of the
arbitration. laid down in advance. and
when trade dispute has reached that
stage where it is impossible to get the
employer and the employee to come to-
gether and adjust their difficulties then
they ought to be induced to submit the
dispute to arbitration. laying down the
basis in advance which will protect
both OF them against any unfair or
unjust decision on the part of the ar
bitratOrs That is one of the functions
Of the department of labor, and that Is
one Of the ways in which the depart
ment of labor can be of value to indus
try and commerce.