, 1922-03-27
THE FARMERS AND THE UNIONS.

1.-THE farmer is by necessity an Independent, self
sufficient individualist,'" remarks the Philadelphia
North American. "He is a capitalist, a proprietor, a
manufacturer, an employer Of labor. He represents
the largest single class of consumers using the goods
which labor makes, and every successful effort by la
Dor to increase its wage return is felt by him.
"Avowed and dominant purposes of labor unionism
are to shorten the working day, to establish arbitrary
and uniform conditions of employment and to restrict
DER capita production. All these aims are at war with
the interests of the farmer. He cannot recognize an
eight-hour or ten-hour day, because his tasks cannot
be deferred and because his operations to a great ex-
tent are controlled by the seasons and the uncertain
ties of the weather. Nor can he adopt uniform rules
of work, because there is no uniformity in his prob
lens. And finally, he is always striving to expand
production, not to contract it.
"The two classes are conscious of economic antag-
olisr. Organized labor is the first to protest when
the foodstuffs raised by the farmer rise in price; and
the farmer is the first to complain when the cost Of
goods manufactured by organized labor increases be-
cause of wage imitation. This conflict Of interest is
natural and will continue.
A basic difference Is that the farmer has two dis
tinct operating problems, while labor has but one. The
farmer must first grow his crops, and then market
them; he is at once a producer and a merchandise.
As We have indicated, in the field of production his in
terests are not the same as those of labor, nor is col
lective action feasible. In disposing of his output,
however, he finds benefit in collective action; but there
is no common ground with labor here, for labor does
not market what it produces.
despite these inherent differences, leaders Of organ.
lied labor strive to make it appear that the farmers
view with growing favor the idea OF an alliance be-
tween the two groups. The truth is that the farmers
sympathies were never alienated from organized Ia
Dor to SO great an extent as at the present time.
"How remote is the chance of a sympathetic COM
bination between the farmers and organized labor was
shown at the national agricultural conferences recently
held at the call of the president. Although the dele
included representatives of banking and indus
try and organized labor and other interests, the gath
ering expressed with Incorporating vigor the deter
Of the farming community to resist with
equal force unjust %exactions by capital and by labor.
1.-THE farmer has not relaxed his vigilance or his de-
fcnsive measures against the power Of capital; but he
has come to regard organized labor as an additional
force against which he must protect himself. During
the years when the workers were struggling against
odds to establish their rights, the farmer gave them
and support, because the two groups had a
interest in curbing the oppressive power Of
combination. But when he perceived that
organized labor, wherever 1t acquired a dominating
position, developed tendencies as arbitrary and AFRO
giant as those of capital, he came to regard the unions
as a hostile element
Never in the history Of the agricultural industry
were the farmers so we'll equipped as now to safeguard
their interests without the assistance of organised la
Dor. 1t is admitted that they hold a dominating posi-
in congress, and viii be able to put through most
of their program of legislation for the protection and
fostering of agriculture Today they have no more
need to sue for the legislative influence Of labor than
for that Of capital. While agriculture has suffered
losses greater than any other industry, the farmers
are not aware Of any movement on the part of labor
to help themj on the contrary, they feel that organ
labor is using it's power selishly and to the hurt
Of the community as a whole.
'Under all these circumstances, a combination be-
tween the farmers and organized labor seems to US
about the remotest of possibilities. It is far more
likely that if the railroad and miners unions continue
to demand war wages, refusing to bear their share Of
the economic reimbursement and keeping up the high
costs of transportation and fuel and other commodi-
organized labor will get from the agricultural
a more drastic dose of legislation than it would
have to fear from a congress controlled by
capital"
The apprehension is growing that opposition to the