The Connecticut labor press., 1920-07-03
VIGOROUS CAMPAIGN TO
KILL ORGANIZED LABOR

alton of law. But the evils can be re-
moved only by gong forward, not back
ward
A reader of the Outlook took excep-
ton to the following sentence in the
foregoing comment:
"Whether we Ike it or not. VIC can
no more go back to the open shop
than we can go back to the hand LOOM"
In communication to the Outlook,
he stated:
Is. | am convinced that the editors
did not mean that sentence as it actu-
ally reads. | am thorough believer in
collective bargaining, and l think a
large maj GRITTY of the people of this
country believe in it. However, there is
a vast difference between agreeing with
the principle of collective bargaining
and the Fundamental principle of the
closed shop We need a sterilization
of wages by industries. Taking the
coal industry as an example, we must
agree that it is highly desirable that a
coal miner in Illinois or Pennsylvania
receive a standard wage. If not, the
entire industry would be in a constant
state of chaos, one mine bidding against
another during rush seasons in a way
that would demoralize wage conditions.
Sherman Rogers pointed out in the
New York World last spring that one
of the main reasons for the skyrocket-
ing of wages in the forests of the State
of Washington in 1917 was the fact that
there no labor organization to deal
with, and therefore no standard of
wages in the industry. This resulted in
one logging camp bidding against an
other for lumberjacks until the daily
rates paid put many small concerns out
of business and brought the larger ones
to the brink of ruin.
But the closed shop is both unneces-
sary and un-American, and one can be
entirely friendly to the principles of the
American Federation of Labor and yet
thoroughly derounCe the closed shop.
A great organization should not be en-
tirely condemned because of single
feature being open to criticism. The
American Federation of Labor has been
of great benefit to Labor in this coun-
try, but | emphatically believe that the
A. F. of L. must ultimately renounce
the closed shop or suffer the loss of
favorable sentiment. No labor organ
ization, nor any other body, for that
matter, can continue its leadership
against overwhelming adverse public
sentiment.
Il quite agree with you that we can
not go back to the days wherein Labor
was polyglot mass of individuals en-
tire1y at the mercy of the Whims of en-
ployers who were not always consider
ate of their welfare. But we can have
great labor organizations without hav-
ing the unAmerican principle of the
closed shop to contend with"
The attitude of Organized Labor on
the question of the ''open shop" has
frequently been stated by labor leaders.
Secretary Frank Morrison of the Amer
lean Federation of Labor has recently
issued the following statement which
sets forth Labor's view in clear and
concise manner:
In the non-union shop democracy is
something unknown. Paternalism and
autocracy is the rule. The employer is
absolute. He is the sole judge of work
ing conditions. He sets hours and wages
and tells his employees they may accept
same or quit their employment. If the
worker quits, and suffering to his wife
and children results, 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 deceive. The inconsis-
tency of the so-called open shop en-
ployer is shown when he says he makes
no distinction between union and nom
union employees and then fills his plant
with spies to report any union employe
who has been discovered discussing the
value of trade-unionism.
Those employers know that in this
age of organization it is unwise to an
nounce 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-unionists to dispute the
employers absolute and complete con-
troll over working conditions. If these
organized workers advocate trade
unionism they are discharged.
Fundamentally there is no difference
between the non-union-shop employer
and the slave owner before the Civil
war In both cases the employer and
the slave owner are absolute. Both pro-
vided amusement for their workers. The
slave owner prided himself on being a
good master The non-union employer
saws: i protect nv emplOyeS'