Great Falls daily tribune., 1919-09-18
SYMPATHETIC STRIKES


1t took hundred years for labor unions to
win universal approval and consent to the doc
trine Of the right Of employees to collective bar
gaining. The older men in any community can
still remember when many employers held out
strongly against the assertion Of that right.
Now scarcely one employer could be found who
would dispute it. Even those who oppose the
present labor unions and will employ no men,
bers of these unions, and there are not many
such, admit that their employees have the right
to organize and bargain with them collectively
regarding wages and conditions of work. The
most they contend for is that no persons outside
ther employment have right to interfere be-
tween them and their employees A somewhat
larger number Of employers still contend for the
open shop or their right to employ persons ire
spective of their membership in labor unions
But by far the largest fraction of employers
frankly accept the present unions and the closed
shop principle. They recognize the union organ
izations and are willing to bargain with them
But it is self-evident proposition that it is
useless and impossible to bargain with employees
either collectively or separately if one side to
the bargain claims the right not to be bound by
the agreement reached, and to strike for no
grievance, but merely to support some other
crowd Of employees in another line Of business
that claim to have a grievance against some
other employer. The object Of a wage agree
ment is to insure steady supply Of labor on
stipulated terms for stipulated period The
sympathetic strike ignores that fact, and defeats
that object. A bargain which binds only one
side to carry out the terms OF the bargain is no
bargain at all. 1t is not collective bargaining or
any other kind of bargaining The sure effect
of sympathetic strikes is to defeat the funda-
mental principle Of collective bargaining or
trades union agreements. No employer can care
for an agreement that without any fault on his
part may be violated any time by the calling out
Of his employees on sympathetic strike. Quite
a number Of the more advanced labor unions
have realized these facts and taken ground
against all sympathetic strikes. This is par
ticularly true of some of the international labor
unions who have in many cases sought to
discipline local unions because they violated
their trade agreements, guaranteed by the inter-
national unions by going out on sympathetic
strikes at the request of some other local union
that had a grievance against their employers.
The Boston Globe, probably spurred to a con-
sideraton Of the subject by threats of a general
strike in support of the striking policemen of
that city makes the following comment on sym
pathetic strikes:
Until now organized labor in America has
allowed to deal collectively with its employers.
Ie has been a long, hard fight, and it has been
won. With that principle established, labor has
stood upon firm foundation. 1t has been an
orderly basis of settling disputes. Now, what?
To start upon career of sympathetic strikes
would end the whole era of bargaining in this
fashion. 1t would mean that contracts agreed
to by employers and employees were thrown
overheard. No men sense the danger of this
more quickly than the responsible leaders of
labor who struggled so long to establish the
present basis of dealing with employers. They
see the whole framework of modern society as
they have helped to build it tumble into the
discard That is why their voices have always
been raised against general strikes. That is why
the whole community would be aroused the
moment the policemens strike grew into strike
Of other crafts. That is why every man would
have to settle for himself on which side he stood
in crisis involving organized society. Do those
who are advocating sympathetic strikes doubt
for moment where the overwhelming majority