The daily Nome industrial worker., 1915-12-31

Labor organizations are now taking stock of the progress which lhas been made in the work of adj vancing the cause of labor.
 It is very difficult to estimate the the benefits which unions have con Serred, because these benefits arc often purely negative.
 Thus, labor may have not advan- ced a step because of organization, but may have at the same time not feccded an inch, and that rcccssi n , was avoided because of the exist .euce of the unions.
 Because of this negative benefit which labor organizations achieve. and in very great naDy casoc it is all that they can achieve, many cess in the work of organizations at all
 It is very doubtful If any human activity is given to so much search ing criticism as are the labor unions, even though they are given also to much self praise which very often is not at all warranted. But ii labor is to progress, criticism and severe criticism, is to be eX- pected and to be accepted withal it's christening effect.
 Certainly it is no use peddlins Unions must, like everything else, be judged by their work. Their justification is in what they do, and mot in what they strivo to do or in tended to do, If they cannot per- form that which is expected of them, the reason must be discover ed, and the machinery of organiza zation adjusted to the needs of the occasion. The success of any move nent whatever. is in the complete adjustment of the means whereby the end is to be gained, to the eff sicient accomplishment of that end. This can only be obtained after ex- pertinent and experiences which are often unpleasant, often disactrous and often very foolish.
 We don't think that le bor has sufficiently pro fitted from it's experiences or from the criticism of it's methods 1t it did we would have seen long since the archaic craft system of or ganization gone out of business, when the craft system in industry went out of business altogether.
 The industrial way is the only way, and it is the only way despite what we may do Or say to argue against it.
 Skilled labor today is mighty easily replaced. Within recent years the employers have allowed the most skilled men to walk out, anu their places were taken, by men who never saw the machinery be fore, with great success. Yet these nnskilled men who took the places of the men who walked out would not be allowed to join the craft union.
 We are still in the age of crafrs according to some organizations with afinitations of memberships, restric tions as to employment, high fees ana non-admission of the uninitiat- ed. But the mysteries" which might well have existed among the guilds of the era of craftsmanship, have no reason for existence today and hence the system that belongs to an industrial system long since defunct, should have no place in mo- dern organization. It is not adjust ed to the requirements of the situa- tion, and there is no method where by it can be-not even syndicalistic boring from within.
 The argument is brought up thai for the most part these craft unions such as they are, afford the only protection that the workers have got in the industries wherein they exist.
 This however is only partly true and their strength io only acquired at the' expense of the rest of the workers when the craftsmen can build up an aristocratic union, clos ing it's books to others, denying membership and making it's fees prohibitive. Moreover as fighting organization when threatened by ahe stronger capitalist organizations these never do amount to anything. They were hopeless before the steel