The Connecticut labor news., 1923-04-27

respect of the masses of our workers as
 well as the sympathetic support of
 students, thinkers, and all 1iberty-1oving
 people.
 This declaration applies to the use of ! the strike power. This power will not
 be relinquished. The good its use has ; done for humanity far out-weighs any | because of 1t. It seems the course of wisdom for all of us to devote our energies to prevent through education the necessity for its use. The greatest
 cause of industrial unrest and the most prolific source of development of class
 antagonism IS the campaign of certain
 reactionary groups to destroy labor unions by taking away the weapon of the strike.
 Here are few reasons why labor opposes anti-strike legislation: l. Anti-striSe legislation IS step backward in social progress. Before the Declaration of Independence, strikes were
 always prohibited. Anti-strike laws
 were a part of the old order of kings and of slavery.
 ?, Anti-strike laws would deprive
 humanity of the weapon with which 1t
 has won it's most important victories. No
 industry has ever reduced hours of labor or raised wages, until compelled to do so by the organized power of the wage earners and the consequent power to strike. Because the workmen III the United States have had a means of realizing their ambition to improve con- ditions, because they have been able to make of their discomfort creative force for their own benefit. the wealth of the United States both individual and aggre gate, exceeds that of any other country in the world. As result, we have an organization of production in the United States, instead of an organization of de- struction. A parallel with China sug- gests itself, because there labor IS not organized. Capital does not derive any benefit because of the few cents a day stinct for organization and personal ad- vancement expresses itself only in the organization of robber bands. The countries that abound in revolution will always be found to be least efficient in the organization of labor.
 B Anti-strike laws are not necessary as means of settling industrial disputes. Strikes have been settled and will con- tinue to be settled without the inter ference of government. Strikes con- stitute very small percentage of the waste in industry. Losses from strikes are partly fictitious. The recent coal
  illustration Anti-abor propagandists have been freely quoted in the news papers as saying that the miners lost huge sums in wages, figuring this loss on the basis of the men in the industry and the time the strike lasted. As matter of fact nothing, generally speaking, was lost by the men. They merely fixed the time for taking a vacation, instead of leaving 1t to the discretion of their | &I1I average working time was 170 working days, leaving 200 days for idleness. The men earned as much, and more, during teh course of the year 1922 as if they had gone out on strike. They mined | the same amount of coal tor wages that | had not been reduced.
 4. There is less need for anti-strike legislation now than ever before. It IS not anti-strike legislation that is needed. It Is fact finding agencies to determine the basis for settlement of industrial dis putes. The American wOrkmen have. neither the intention, nor the desire, to Justice, fair dealing, education and are the best means of obtain ing industrial peace in a democracy such as the United States.
 To quote the following extracts from an address by the president of the American Federation of Labor before the New Jersey Legislature in 1920, in opposing the anti-strike legislation then pending:
 You and I are made uncomfortable and caused inconvenience by reason of any cessation of work Just so are we and made uncomfortable during the process of changing from enc condition to another There has 4, l., Il,