The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1920-05-21
UNION SHOP vs..
NON-UNION SHOP
BY FRANK MORRISON,
Secretary American Federation of
Labor

Labor.
The union shop is democracy in
industry. The right of employees to
bargain collectively, to have a voice
in working conditions, is recognized.
In the non-union shop this de-
mocracy is unknown. Paternalism
and autocracy is the rule. The en-
ployer is absolute He is the sole
Judge of working conditions. He
sets hours and wages and tells his
employees they may accept same or
quit their employment. If the work
er quits, and suffering to his wife
and children result, the employer
calls this freedom of contract"
This employer dislikes the term
"non-union" shop, so he refers to
his plant as "open" shop. The term
is misleading and is intended to de-
ceive. The inconsistency of the So
called "open" shop employer is shown
when he says he makes no distinc-
ton between union and non-unon
employees and then fills his plant
with spies to report any union en-
ploye who has been discovered dis
cusing the value of trade union
ism.
These employers know that in this
age of organization it is unwise to
announce that they are opposed to
trade unions. So they employ Just
enough trade unionists to serve as
an alibi against the charge that
they oppose trade unions, but they
do not employ enough trade union
lists to dispute the employers alb
solute and complete control over
working conditions. If these or
gained workers advocate trade
unionism they are discharged
The unions hold that organized
labor sets the standards for work
ers and that it is just as logical
that all workers assist in maintain
ing these standards as it is for all
citizens to pay taxes.
The so-called "open" shop en-
ployer would not approve citizen
Sinking his duties as a taxpayer,
but does favor his employees shirk-
ing their duties to their fellows
The reason for the latter position is
apparent The employer profits by
this Sinking, which permits him
to set wages, hours and working
conditions. But more than this he
retains complete power over his
employees.
He may arrange welfare societies
in his plant. He may have a pen
sion system for those employees who
serve him faithfully and who just
as faithfully abstain from trade
union membership. He may con-
duct a system of athletics and rec
reation for his employees and pro-
vide them with model work rooms.
but above and beyond all these
there is no element of democracy
in his plant. He denies his en-
ployes collective bargaining, and
therefore controls the lives of these
workers. He sets their living STAN
dards. He orders. His workers ac-
cept. They are denied an equality
enjoyed by union shop employees.
Non-union shop employees accept
the welfare work of an employer,
but they do it at the price of their
liberty. Their grievances are sub
ject to the good will of the en-
ployer. He may remedy them, but
he does it because he is "a good
boss" and not because his employees
stand up as men and demand JUS
tice.
If the grievance is not adjusted
the employe must accept onerous
conditions OF quit. If an individual
quits, that is nothing to the en-
ployer.
Fundamentally there is no diff
ference between the non-union shop
employer and the slave owner be-
fore the Civil war In both cases
the employer an dthe slave owner
are absolute. Both provided amuse-
ment for their workers. The slave
owner prided himself on being "a
good master" The non-union en-
ployer says: 81 protect my en-
ployes."
In neither case was the slave or
IS the employe permitted to pro-
tect themselves.
In the unionshop this autocratic
rule does not exist. Here, the en-
ployes have collective voice in
working conditions. The employer
comedies that democracy in indus
try is possible and that welfare
work is not substitute for
democracy. The union employer is
not interested in welfare work or
in protecting" his employees. He
treats them as Americans who can
furnish their own amusements and
recreation. Company doctors, COM
pany nurses, etc, are unknown
among union employers.
The non-union shop employer ig-
nores these fundamentals. He would
conceal his slave thaorv- hic ,oasto.
sip over his employees and their work
ing conditions-by talking about the
so-called "open" shop, the glory of
independence, and "the tyranny of
the unions" while he himself denies
independence and proves that tyran-
ny can exist, though he attempts to