The daily Nome industrial worker., 1917-02-02
INDU SERIAL UNIONISM.

In an address delivered by Scott Nearing he criticized the railroad brotherhoods for their inefficient form of organization and showed that they represented but enc fifth of railroad employees. Moreover he pointed out that these brotherhood did not receive much sympathy ill their struggle from the rest of the railroad workers mainly because Of the fact that when the other rail- road workers had sought to benefit their condition, the brotherhoods had invariably remained passive which passivity was an actual al liance with employing companies.
 He uttered warning that i'll case Of a trouble with the brOtherhoods and a strike. this former method of the brotherhoods would react upon them.
 Tnquestionably Nearing is correct. There has been an enormous lot of stun written about the brotherhoods which made them the noble heroes of the labor movement when as matter of fact they have been quite the reverse and except when they were considering their own skins, they never took an active part at all and could never be brought to make h. workers in the fight of the latter He urges that to make an efficient organization il is necessary to fol. low the example of the railroads and to represent not one small sec tion of employees but all of them. Moreover he points out that the day of the engineman and the fireman is passing. Oil burners with me chanical contrivances for feeding are eliminating the latter very rapidly while the substitution for steam of electricity is going to make the en- gineer's calling superfluity. It will be very easy to run motor and h with so little trouble that it is cer' tain that the roads are going to pay engineers no such wages as they are paying them today.
 The only way that the engineers and others can protect their wages therefore is to make common cause with all workers in the railroad in- dustry and organize not for the bet terment of this or that craft but the united brotherhood of railroad en- ployees.
 What Scott Nearing said is of course what industrial unionists have said long since and which has been said, it is regrettable to say, quite in vain. The industrial form of organization has made relatively little progress in the United States in ten years time and the agitation which has been carried on has been little better than a paper propa ganda. This is certainly striking condition but it has also to be con fessed that unionism as a whole made relatively little progress. in America and the industrialists have fared not much worse than the rest.
 The arguments in favor of in dustrial unionism are unassailable, but arguments do not seem to be of much account in this matter in any event. The evolution of industry may be shaping itself towards the still the craft union hangs on in spite of all.
 The craft union is at present time in no such position of strength as in former days and when it con fronts an employing organization which will fight it. it is seldom that the craft comes off anythiSg bu, second best
 The craft union puts up a manful struggle, it's members fight with de- termination, but the industry being divided into craft organizations, they fall quite easily before the on slaught of organized capital.
 The fight of the Pacific Coast 1ongshoremen in the transportation industry last year affords a striking illustration of what actually hap pens. The unionists were deter mined men. everyone of them. But they did not control through organi-