Newark leader. ([Newark, Ohio]) 1917-1946, 1919-12-19
Establishment of Court for Ad-
juStment of Difficulties
Is Suggested.
TO DO AWAY WITH STRIKES
Member of New York Arbitration
Board Would Substitute Orderly
Legal Proceedings for Present Cost
ly and NeVer-Ending Turmoil.
BY ROSS r. TUCKER,


mittee of the General Arbitration Board, |
New York Building Trades.
The turmoil that everywhere besets |
industry, because of the aggression |
of the wage Garner, is due, primarily, |
to the failure of society 10 provide |
proper method for the adjustment OF
the never-ending controversies arising
between employer and employed.
At bottom society is at fault, and
it is because of this fault that there
has grown up the tolerance Of con-
ditiOn as wicked as it is wasteful.
This condition is found in the virtual
ly universal acceptance OF false
premise, to-wit That man has a
right to strike. There is a general ac-
quiescence in this idea, as if striking
were a right guaranteed to all men,
like life, liberty and the pursuit OF
happiness.
There is, in fact, no such thing as
the right to strike, and if society had
heretofore thought clearly and acted
wisely, in accordance with established
principles. the strike would be regard
ed as immoral and it would have been
made Illegal as well.
Let US examine this matter more
closely.
Suppose that society had provided
no method by which a debt could be
collected, and suppose your nelghbor
owed you a sum of money. How
would you collect it? If it happened
that you were physically able you
would probably take what you claimed
by main strength. Or, if it happened
that the debtor was the more power
ful, you would doubtless have to sum
mon your friends to your assistance.
1t is very evident, without further
elaboration of the picture, that TINS
road would lead directly and speedily
/ to social chaos Therefore, society
/ has set up a method and a procedure
by which all disputes of this nature
may be speedily and effectively deter
! mined.
/ 1t is quite probable, however, that
/ had this orderly proceeding not been
! established, such taking by force
! would have been regarded as right
/ by exactly the same logic and the
| same process of reasoning that the
strike is now regarded as right.
However, when society has ordained
the method by which such cOntrover-
sizes between men may be settled, the
so-called right of violent taking be-
! comes a crime, and is adjudged and
! punished as such.
! Now let US consider another class
! of difficulties, but little removed from
| the first in Importance, the disputes
! between employer and employed:
A workman believes that he should
receive an increase In his rate OF
! pay.
What method has society estab-
lished by which such a claim may be
determined? None at all.
/ There are some who will answer
that the workman should make no
| such claim, and that, if he is dissatis-
| fed, he should seek other employ
| ment.
But here arises a question of large
| importance: To what extent has the
workman a right to participation in
the product of his labor? In an earlier
day, labor was regarded as a com
modify, to be bought and sold like
any article of commerce. An en-
ployer bought a days labor for an
| amount agreed upon. Competition
| played an important part in determin-
ing the price of the days labor, as
well as the laws Of demand and sup
! ply.
With the advance of industry, how
ever, with the raising Of the plane of
, living, with the development of ma
chnery, with the improvement of sur
rOundings, with the dissemination of
education, with the growth of larger
outlook and the prOmulgation of the
| principles of social justice, the queS-
tion of labor's participation In the
product of industry takes on a larger
significance and becomes one of the
pressing problems Of the times.
In order that the idea may be de
velOped, there must be joining of
capital and labor The idea cannot
advance with capital alone nor with
labor alone. 1t is dependent wholly
upon the support Of both. If, then,
the idea does advance by the help Of
both, and if, on the way, it gathers
wealth, so that it at last arrives, rich
er than before the journey began, to
whom does the wealth SO derived be-
long? Bearing always in mind that
this wealth was created by the joint
effort of capital and labor, and bear
ing In mind that there would have
been no such wealth, except by this
joint participation, how shall it be
said that this increase of production
belongs wholly to capital or wholly
to labor? Who shall say how much
of this wealth justly belongs to capital
and how much belongs to labor?
Clearly, only properly constituted
court of law can decide the VuestioM