The labor standard., 1922-02-15

l interest to lower sensibly. much les: - to abolish; for increased buying power ? in wise hands means stable community progress based on industry, frugality f and liberty. Into other families, les: l intelligent or less conscientious. the t exorbitant wages of the wartime l brought nothing but habits of ex. - Itravagance and> senseless waste ! These are now filling the ranks of the unemployed, and having, made no sav. ings during their fat years, are ir want. Some students of industrial re. l lations seem inclined to regard unem. ployment as a cause of industrial ur- rest. Is it not rather. a symptom o1 ; an industrial disorder due to error o1 , rashness on the part of capital or ot labor or of both?
 There is some evidence, too, that the
 trades do not follow their leaders as
 well as they used to do, sometimes making an explicit declaration that
 they are disobeying their elected lead
 CTS, but oftener contenting themselves
 with silently acting contrary to the
 express advice of these leaders. 4 Outlaw" strikes have increased in frequency. It may be remarked in
 passing that many events have occur
 red within the last five years (1917- 1922) to increase the distrust of peo-
 pie in general concerning the internal
 management of labor unions. It is
 confidently affirmed by union men,
 and is commonly believed, that on i'm
 portant measures the determinations
 of the unions are really made by the
 younger and least responsible men1- l bers, the older members habitually ne
 glecting to attend the meetings of
 the unions, mo matter how important
 the issue to be voted on may be. It
 is also alleged that the practice of keeping on their rolls the names of
 members who never, come to the meet
 ings and never pay any dues is ex-
 tending in labor unions. Because of
 the secrecy of all 1aDor union meet
 ings, it is impossible to get at the
 facts on these subjects; but this very
 impossibility increases, the object
 which the American public. is feeling
 more and more to the invisible man. agement of labor unions and of the federations of local unions.
 Unions and Piece-Work :.
 Tn recent years, the method of pay ing the individual workman. by the
 piece or by his results" has, come
 into rather general use in some of this country's most considerable ln
 dustries. Organized labor has always
 been opposed tospiece-w work; because factory which pays it's worknen by the piece permits it's individual work
 CTS, both men and women, to earn very various amounts of weekly pay, thus violating a fundamental policy
 of unionized labor, namely, uni form wage in given trade or occu- patton throughout the largest pos sible region. The uniform wage for all journeymen or skilled workmen in given trade has always been fun damental doctrine with the labor unions, doctrine very injurious to the personal character of the individ
 ual workman. When, for instance, a young man has once been admitted to a carpenters union, he has no pecu- niary inducement to become more skillful at his trade from year to year; because he can only earn the pre- scribed uniform wage, no matter how much more skillful and productive he may become. If, however, he be paid by the piece, the higher his weekly earnings will become with every in productiveness. In other words, piece work abolishes the uniform wage. It is significant fact, therefore. that more and more mills, mines and fac tories, using a great variety of raw materials and turning out very varl- Aous products, pay their workmen by the piece. They do this, of course, because both parties, managers and employees, or capital and labor, like that way best. The method is apph- cable to crews or gangs of workmen who combine to produce a given article, quite as we'll as to individuals. F 1T |, .sr yo- of changes in the traditional views of owners or managers concerning the relations between capital and labor. To many employers the conflict be- tween capital 'and labor seems more and more destructive and injurious as organization is perfected and ex- tended on both sides, particularly as the organization of capital has proved to be more difficult and less firm than the organization of labor. As the con- ,hict becomes more destructlve and its losses heavier, the question arises whether after all it be inevitable. In the next place, although most own CTS and managers still hold that suc- cess in any manufacturing industry is dependent, as rule, on one head or controller of it's policies, it is not in- consistent with that principle to SUD- ply the indispensable head with inter- ested advisers and associates who ex- ercise important functions of over sight and discipline, although always under the direction of the head or chief. Again, the repugnance on the part of owners or managers to giving the >workmen in the factory or shop knowledge of the cost of it's plant, and of it's sales, accounts and risks has been much diminished. in many cases by experience of the great in crease in the efficiency of any body of employees which results from the conviction on their part that the shop or factory is in some true sense theirs as we'll as the owners; theirs because they wish to promote in every way it's interest and it's safe functioning; theirs not only because their daily la bor is essential to that safe function ing, but because they feel that on their fidelity and efficiency it's pros perity depends and therefore the se- curity and well-being of themselves and their families through long fu-