The Butler County press. [volume] (Hamilton, Ohio) 1900-1946, 1914-09-18
NOT A COMMODITY
Labor Cannot Be CIassed as a
Piece of Property.
A LONG ABANDONED THEORY
That One Man Can Have a Property
Right In Another Is an Idea No
Longer Tolerated Among Civilized
Peopie-Savery Days Have Passed.

Longer Tolerated Among Civilized
People-sIavery Days Have Passed.
| Discussing the labor sections of the
Clayton antitrust bill. the Outlook
Magazine says in part:
The whole question whether labor
unions should come under the opera
| ton of the antitrust law rests upon
| the question whether labor Is mer-
| chandise or not. From the point Of the
STAKEHOLDER, of course. labor is mer-
| chandise. The slave Is as truly val
liable piece of property as a horse.
From the point of view of some econo-
mists labor is regarded as a commodity
| which, like potatoes or steel or water
| power. is offered by the owner in the
| highest market and sought by the buy
er in the lowest market. This is the
| only ground on which the application
| of the antitrust law to labor unions
| can be defended.
This view of labor as commodity Is
| rightly becoming obsolete Slavery is
no longer countenanced among civilized
| people. The idea that one man can
have a property right in another man
is no longer defended by reasonable
| people. With the abandonment of that
| idea must be abandoned the idea of la
Dor as a commodity, for labor consists
of human beings
The man who wishe, to buy potatoes
or steel or water power buys thing
A man who hires labor for wage en-
ploys a human being The man who
sells potatoes or steel or water power
gives that which is separate from him
self, but a man who offers his labor
for wage offers himself. The pur.
chaser of commodity does not inquire
whether the seller Is thrifty or has
good habits; all that he wants to know
is whether his goods are All that the
seller represents them to be. The man
who hires labor, on the other hand,
is very much concerned with the hab-
its, the character OF the person he
hires. Such a difference as this the
law ought to recognize. If 1t does not
recognize it the law ought to be
changed. The United States courts
have declared in substance that the
difference between the rights that a
man has in things that he happens to
own and the right that he has over
himself
The avowed object Of the amendment
which the house of representatives
unanimously passed recently was to
recognize this difference and to make
it impossible hereafter for laboring
men who are organized for the com
mon protection of themselves to be
treated by the courts as men who have
combined for the purpose of monopoIiz-
ing Il commodity.
This provision applies also to farm
ers' organizations 1t is sufficient to
say that the farmer is the most in
diyidualistic OF individuals, and no
other danger is quite so remote as
that of farmers monopolstic organ
ization. Anything which can legiti-
mately he done to encourage co-opera-
ton among farmers should be vel
coined as public benefit.
The other provision in the antitrust
measures which affects labor unions is
that which prohibits the issuance of
injunctions in labor disputes except
when necessary for preventing irrepa-
. rabe injury, and then only in response
to q written application. prohibits the
issuance of injunctions against peace
full primary boycotts and peaceful pick.
, citing; in addition, declares that such
peaceful boycotts and peaceful pick.
citing shall not be construed to be lille
gal.
This provision seems to us to be eau
tiously planned and to provide by
statute nothing but what has beer
judged permissible by at least some OF
the higher courts of the land. There
Is no reason why the courts should at
tempt to enjoin men from refusing tc
deal or for persuading others to refuse
to deal with an employer with whom
they have a controversy. Nothing il
this provision legalizes the attempt tx
: enforce such boycott by coercive Oh
: violent methods or by attempting {
] secondary boycott-that is, the refusa
J to deal with those who decline to joiI
\ the boycott. There is no reason why
: the court should attempt to enjoin meI
q from peacefully attempting to persuad,
. others not to work for an employer
q with whom they have a controversy
, This is peaceful picketing. and 1t ough
to be distinctly understood to be wei
within the law. There is nothing il
: tsls provision which legaliZes the at
: tempt to enforce the desires of striker!
by coerciye measures of any kind. Ii
: this provision, with regard to injunc
tions, there is and ought to be nothing
that is not as applicable to the EN-
ployer as to the employee.
I There is no question here whethe
{ labor unions should be regulated o
not, Labor unions equally with an.
J. other large bodies of men should b.
, kept subject to the sovereignty of tn
u whole people. The question Is whethe
: labor shall be treated as a commodit,
{ and whether men shall be allowed t
do jointly what every one is and ough
to be allowed 10 do singly in the cor
troll OF his own labor
Training School For Girls.