The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-10-25

Mr.. GoMpERs and his fellow dele
gates in the labor group Of the Indus
trial Conference at Washington with
drew because Of the rejection of the
resolution:
THE right of wage earners to
organize without discrimination, to
bargain collectively. to be represented
by representatives of their own chooe-
ing in negotiations and adjustments
with employers In respect to wages,
hours Of labor and relations and con-
ditions Of employment is recognised"
Discussing the particular incident
and the general matters which led up
to 1t the World says:
Putting aside the folly of labor
in bolting the conference, even under
provocation, and the circumstance
that some Of the most obstinate rep
resentatives of employers are not en-
pioyers at all the tactics adopted by
that group cannot fail of wide con-
demnation. The practices which they
reject are almost universal. They
lie at the foundation of organised in
dustry; they have been accepted
everywhere by employers who value
justice and security In their enter
prises, and in most cases the results
have been satisfactory to all con-
cerned.
by their willingness TO accept a
generalization so broad that nothing
but the bare principle Of organising
and bargaining collectively was pro-
posed the representatives of labor
met the issue in a liberal spirit. By
their logged opposition the employers
or their understudies enrolled them
selves as reactionaries. blind to ex-
listing conditions and Indifferent to
progress"
But did the employers group reject
the resolution because 1t provided fol
collective bargaining7 The steno
graphic report of the proceedings does
not seem to show that this is fact
The stenographic report does seem tt
show that the representatives Of the
employers were willing to have a spe
cific declaration that collective bar
gaining should be the right Of al
labor, union or non-union. The steno
graphic report seems to show that II
the preliminary discussion Of the reso
luton some Of the representatives o!
the employers who finally votet
against the resolution had stated II
Mr.. GoMPEas and his group that the,
would vote for the resolution II onlI
this point were made clear and spe
cifc. The stenographic report SEEM
to show that some Of them said the!
would be willing to vote for the reso
luton, even without the specific dec
laration, If only the members coul'
reach among themselves an express
understanding of the meaning of tn
resolution.
II it was intended that the collec
tive bargaining should apply to al
labor, union or non-union, what homes
objection could there be to making tn
fact, by the very language Of the rest
luton, unmistakable? Why IL tn
resolution did mean all that the repre-
sentatives of the employers wanted
to mean, as some Of the represents
tives of labor thought it did mean
why did they not let it say 1t in 8
many words?
But whether 1t was possible or in
possible to make the specific declars
ton the thing was not done. An
whether 1t was possible or impossible
to reach an express understanding O
the meaning of the resolution tina
thing was not done either. And
this was the cause of the rejection Q
the resolution it would seem that
was a resolution which ought not t
have been voted for by any Of tn
groups. No group should haveasough
to put through a resolution who's
meaning was not expressly undel
stood by all. All the groups repr,
scented should have insisted upon
resolution so worded that nobody, 1
the conference or out Of the oonfel
ence, could have shadow of .douh
as to its meaning and its effect.