Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-07-01
MORE ABOUT THE OPEN SHOP.

The Journal would be interested in fuller in
formation than it now possesses to who con-
stitutes the National Economic League and what
1t purposes may be. We know that it purpors to
be group of impartial students Of economic
questions in the United States. 1t may be Just
that. On the other hand, 1t may be an organiza-
ton for special propaganda, but using a high
sounding name to mslead the public. Let it be
understood that we cast no suspicious We want
to be neither suspicious nor too gullible.
The League recently sent its members ques-
tionaire the labor problem. This contained
twelve questions. Five hundred members are re-
ported to have answered it. The results might be
very significant if known concerning
the five hundred men who answered.
Ninety per cent said readjustment In industrial
relations essential to prosperity. Eighty-five
per cent thought employees should share in the
profits of industrial undertakings. sixty-four per
cent were for general acceptance of union recog-
milton. seventy-eight per cent believed employees
should participate in the management in all prob
lens affecting the worker.
Then comes the startling answer. Ninety per
cent of the members voted that the principle Of
the open shop should prevail In America. If the
remaining made in good faith and
five hundred and women, who otherwise
reply favorably to union labor, believe in the prin
cple Of the open shop, by preponderance of
nine one, 1t is amazing and very significant. OF
course, II 1t is framed" piece of open shop pro-
paganda, IL means nothing. That Is why we IN
wife some one to tell us in some detail about the
league.
The Journal has been able to bring itself
to believe In the general application of the prin-
ciple of the open shop. AS abstract question
the arguments all in favor Of the open shop.
In fact, abstract argument be made against
it SO far as thinking will carry Yet the
Journal not believe in the general application
of the principle under the conditions which gen.
orally prevail in America today.
The basic argument for the open shop is that
all Americans have right to work if they wish
to do so, without the consent of any body of men
as to pay hours working conditions and
without regard to membership non-member-
ship in any organizations; that each Is an
American citizen entitled to contract his services
such terms he fit without supervision
or interference from anyone.
There is no answer to that abstract statement
Of American rights If the argument, in the abb
sract, told the whole story every unbiased person
would be forced to be for the open shop, But
a practical matter. there is much more to be
said
Without the unions ninety per cent of Aneri-
laborers would have voice in making their
contracts to pay hours working condi-
tons, The employer would fix these suit HIM
self, The laborer would accept what he must
take. Boldly stated the general fact is that the
individual laborer in America Is utterly helpless
Either the employer the labor union will die
tate wages, hours and conditions. The union has
largely superseded the employer the dictator
The employer wants his power returned to him.
America is faced with the question OF whether
the employer the union shall do the debating.
In spite of all high-flown talk about The power to
contract Of free-born American citizens. the cold
hard fact remains that the individual. generally
speaking, enforce no such right. He takes
what he get.
In view of this practical fact it should be 'ap-
parent that the abstract argument loses its force
IL the time ever comes in America when in
dividual actually contract at arms length the
open shop principle will become workable. Until
them it is question of enforcing the right to
participate in contract making by combining Into
organizations strong enough to be heard
The question of the open shop is therefore a |
practical question in America In fact, the Jour |
nal believes it to be almost local question for |
each community to solve for itself. Where the |
employer is cold and hard and selfish and too !
powerful labor is justified in combining so tight
ly that it can force his hand. Where labor be- !
comes cold and hard and selfish and too powerful |
and thereby wrings corrupt unfair advantage |
and leaves the employer without voice in con- |
tract making, the open shop movement is the only |
remedy. |
The Journal does not believe that the employer !
should be in position to dictate absolutely the |
terms and conditions of labor Any thoughtful |
woman knows that such a condition means
chtld-labor, sweat-shops and peonage, with insult |
ferably low standards of living. To destroy all the
unions In America would a return to those |
conditions from which the unions have lifted labor
But we equally disbelieve in putting the en- |
ploye in position to absolutely dictate the terms
and conditions of labor Labor possesses the |
same human nature the employer and will
take uncomfortable advantage as he, If given |
enough power. In the end it means business |
paralysis.
We must keep the balances level The public |
must be, now with the employer. with labor |
according to the merits of the case In each COM |
munity and in each individual controversy.
AS a matter of fact, we lean strongly to the |
opinion that the apparent public hostility unions
is based upon the unwise conduct of labor leaders
In some specific controversies and not upon an |
opposition to the principle of unionism. Wherever
the open shop fight gains any popularity it is due
to local conditions.
AS we have said before, the Journal will never |
Join in open shop fight unless labor leaders
arroganty make economic conditions intolerable
In New Mexico
The future Of union labor lies entirely in the
hands Of the unions.