The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1921-05-21
"oPEN" AND "CLosED" SHOP,

mean7 These questions are asked per-
sistently, in spite of the numberless
times these terms have been defined
and explained.
The uncertainty and Indebtedness
attaching to the use Of the terms
"open" and "closed' shop caused the
United States Industrial Commission to
discard their use entirely and adopt
the terms "union' and "non- union"
shop.
Each party to the great controversy
now going on gives its respective in
depreciation to what it considers the
actual meaning Of the conditions ex-
pressed by these terms.
AS an ideal, the proponents of the
so-called "open shop' claim it is
place where each worker is obliged to
60 to the employer and make bargain
for services, and will not have to be-
long to a union to get work, and may
get work even though they have such
affiliations.
It is asserted by open shop. support
ers that there is no objection to labor
unions, but that they must not interfere
between the worker and the employer.
Just. what function such an organiza-
ton would perform they do not deign
to explain.
This is the full depth Of the open
shoppers knowledge-at least their
logic SO indicates; but their practice
shows much deeper perception. They
know from experience that when the
lone worker must bargain with the boss
in competition with other workers, he
must take just what the employer feels
like giving, and that is determined by
what like labor can be bought on the
open market. Wages then become a
matter of what it takes to produce the
worker. It is case Of the cost Of
production, and this is finally deter.
mined by the standard of living Of the
workers.
This is the inevitable result of the
strict enforcement Of the "open shop.
principle. The refusal to recog nize the
right Of the workers to organize and
bargain collectively simply means: that
they must freely compete, and the
cheapest worker will get the job. The
opponents of the so-called closed shop
describe it as a place of employment
in which none but members Of the
union can find work, and the employer
has no voice in the quality and guam
tity of work produced. It is charged
that all workers are paid uniform
wage and only certain amount Of
product is permitted. It would be nat
ural that this form Of employment
would arouse the condemnation Of all
fair-minded persons, and union support
ers are just as vigorous in regulating
such as others are in condemning it.
The arrangement that organized labor
contends for is one in which the work
ers organize and make a deal with the
employer to pay not less than certain
amount, or living wage to the least
efficient worker. This is an economi-
cally sound and humane principle. But
this does not prevent the employer from
paying as much over this minimum
amount as he may deem fair. As a
matter Of fact there is strict adher-
ence to the payment Of the lowest
amount by the employers, and then the
complaint is made that the union com
pels uniform pay!
The product is not limited, nor are
the wages. The union does object to
the speeding up'' process which in
evitably reduces wages and destroys the
worker. The best workmen are in the
union and the largest product is pro:
duced in union shops. Builders, testi.
tying before the Lockwood committee
in New York said union labor was Is
per cent cheaper to- the public than
non-union labor.
The "open shop" becomes strictly
non-union shop or it becomes union
shop. At least it meets the wages and
conditions established by organized
labor. Today the union shop sets the
standard for the non.union shop. The
49,
shop would mean the extinction Of
the union and the wholesale lowering
OF the wage standards. This is only
too we'll known by selfish employers
who are spending good money to break
down all barriers to the .dictation Of
wages, hours Of labor and working
conditions. :.
YYevxsHYor ma