MASTER NEGATIVE NO. 94-82202 COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials including foreign works under certain conditions. In addition, the United States extends protection to foreign works by means of various international conventions, bilateral agreements, and proclamations. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. The Columbia University Libraries reserve the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in Its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. Author University of Oklahoma Dept. of Public... Title: The open shop Place: [Norman] Date: [1921] ^^.935d:) - \ COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET MASTER NEGATIVE # ORIGINAL MATERIAL AS FILMED - EXISTING BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD IT 267 0k4 Oklahoma. University. University extension division. Depf, of public discussion and debate. ... The open shop. Resolved: That the policy of the open shop should he adopted in the United States. Joseph Ernest McAfee, editor, J. W. Scroggs, Extension division, Department of public discussion and debate. [Norman, The University of Oklahoma, 1921] ^l\P- 22"". (On cover: University of Oklahoma bulletin. New series, no. 224. Extension no. 64) At head of title : University of Oklahoma bulletin. I. McAfee, Joseph Ernest, 1870- 1. Open and closed shop II. Title. ed. Liljrary of Congress HD6488.04 l3|- 22-27115 RESTRICTIONS ON USE: TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA FILM SIZE; 3SvY\m DATE FILMED: REDUCTION RATIO: \lkt IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA ® IB IIB TRACKING # : MSi^ 09Li?t INITIALS ■.Jh FILMED BY PRESERVATION RESOURCES. BETHLEHEM. PA. jSs- CJl 3 3 D" O > I? N CO en ^-< OOM o 3 3 > o m CD CD OQ < N X M 'V? O: o o 3 3 o 3 3 J^l > Ul J?/ % % ^Is^, a? O O 3 3 O P«I!|:E|5|;|J FK I? IS CO ro bo Os s g KIs 1.0 mm 1.5 mm 2.0 mm ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghi)klmnopqrsluvwxyjl234567890 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzl234567890 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 1234567890 2.5 mm ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 1234567890 V .«■' I^c ^\)> ^ fe' fc> ¥* ^P ^Sr ■*A. # f? 4^ 'i^ .*« .i It ^g= -^^ fc> ^fp tr m H O O -o m "o OLl"o > Ceo I TJ ^ Oc/) 5 m O m A. >, ^A. <. -2} si 8 V. ^^>^. ^^""-^ UNIVERSITY OP OKIiAHOMA BULLETIN IIBRARY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS THE OPEN SHOP 3 Issued Se^xii-Moiithly By THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA Norman, Oklahoma NEW SERIES NO 224. EXTENSION NO. 64 SEPTEMBER 15, 1921 i; 1^ "P^CT X5Wt LIBRARY School of Business m UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA BULLETIN . 'Til' THE OPEN SHOP RESOLVED: That the poh'cy of the Open Shop should be adopted in the United States. JOSEPH ERNEST McAFEE, Editor J. W. SCROGGS, Extension Division, Department of Public Discussion and Debate. ) / M ^. vi ''I i "W tr-^ J ^ / t FOREWORD This pamphlet is designd primarily for the use of high school debating teams in the state of Oklahoma. These are boys and girls in their teens. The pamphlet is not a primer. It does not talk down to its readers. Yet it aims to talk directly to them. It is a stu- dents' manual rather than an encyclopedia or a dictionary. In the address to the debaters which opens the pamphlet, a working kit is recommended. Little of the material included in the three publications there mentioned is included in this volume. Most of the material here used has been issued since January, 1921. The debater is askt to seek material which came out before that date in the three publications named, and thru the bibliographies to be found in two of the three. This explanaton of the aim of the pamphlet will show also why no bibliography is included. Such exhaustive and admirable lists will be in the debaters' hands in these other publications that another here would needlessly cumber space better em- ployd otherwise. This also explains the absence of an index in this pamphlet. The material is so arranged as to enable the reader quickly to find the kind of material he may be seeking, and since no at- tempt is made to treat any phase of the subject exhaustively, an index would add little or nothing to the serviceableness of the pamphlet. The material is arranged in five general divisions, as follows: THE DEBATE, being an address to the debaters who are to use the pamphlet. MAINY FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE, presenting articles and discussions from those who contend for the open shop in American industry. MAINLY FOR THE NEGATIVE, presenting articles and discussions from those who oppose the campaign for the open shop, either proposing an alternative in the unionized shop, or who on some other ground disapprove of the employers' cam- paign. GENERAL DISCUSSION, being quotations and discus- f . f 1 • li I-,. t THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA sions which bear now on one side of the question and now on the other. BOTH SIDES OF THE QESTION, being in the nature of a summary of the discussion, to assist debaters in balancing the'f arguments. The pamphlet contains no "briefs" for either side. Debaters of independent mind will prefer to make their own briefs, and those who seek them already prepared will find them workt out in extreme detail in one of the publications recommended for the debater's "kit". As is frequently pointed out in the bulletin, our question opens all phases of the labor problem. A masterly handling of the subject will require wide reading and a comprehensive study. And no study will serve more effectively to prepare boys and girls for intelligent and efficient citizenship. No public question is more important than ours at this time, if all its bearings and implications are reckond in. Each debater may well keep an eye open for all the dis- cussion of industrial questions, the relations of capital and labor, of employer and employe, the activities of large corporations in the organization of labor, and of the labor unions. Watch the dai'y nnd vvcekly and monthly press. There is no knowing v/hat valuabie fresh m.aterial you may there find, in addition to that here presented and to be found thru the other publications here- in recommended. Industrial orpjanization is one of the great subjects pressing upon the attention of all the American people. So much of the work of the preparation of this bulletin has been done by Mr. Joseph Ernest McAfee of the Department of Community Inst tutes that his name is given as the editor. Tniversity of Oklahoma, J. W. SCROGGS. September 1921. W' THE DEBATE TO THE DEBATERS: This bulletin is not intended to serve as an encyclopedia. It will scarcely more than introduce you to the subject it treats. Our whole economic system is being stird to its depths by the controversy now raging around this question of the open shop in industry. Literature is rolling off the presses by the ton. There is much discussion in the general magazines and news- papers, but there is far more in trade organs, in pamphlets, in paid advertisements and in the varied media of organized pro- paganda. Employers are banded together in this interest as they have rarely been in connection with any other movement. This docs not mean that employers are a unit in their advocacy of one side of the controvcny. There are some wlio out- spokenly oppose the campaign, and others who are working along new lines in industrial organization, Vvhere they are carried out of the current of the present controversy. They feel that the strife for and against the open shop leads into a blind alley, brings on a deadlock between two opposing forces. They be- lieve that neither can finally win. The salvation of our indus- trial system must come thru a different approach which will le^ive this open-closed shop controversy on one side, and mak- it un- necessary to decide between either of the warring hosS*. There is thus every reason to urge each deh.cer to equip himself with the best and most conclusive liter^aire on the sub- ject. This bulletin will only get you started. A Working Kit In addition to this pamphlet each debating team is urged to secure the following publications: THE CLOSED SHOP. Last Edition. L. T. Eeman. Pub- hsht by the H. W. W^ilson Company. White Plains, New York. OPEN SHOP ENCYCLOPEDIA. Prepared by the Open Shop department of the National Association of Manufacturers 50 Church Street. New York City. THE OPEN SHOP DRIVE. Who is Behind it and Where I ^ I li ■«« 6 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA is it Going? By Savel Zimand, of the Bureau of Industrial Re- search, 289 Fourth Avenue, New York City. SOc. A word about each. The first named is the latest in the well-known Hand Book Series specially prepared for the use of debaters. It is bound in boards, as the other publications mentiond are not. It deals with both sides of the question, gives an elaborate "brief" for each side, and the body of the volume is a scries of articles quoted from recent literature, book and periodical, on both sides of the question and in general discussion. Do not confuse it with the earlier volume in the same series dealing with the same question under a different title, and published in 1910 or 1912. This volume recommended to you was publisht in February, 1921, and thus is p.lmost the latest material available. The second publication named is not true to its title. It is not an encyclopedia. It deals with only one side of the ques- tion. It is a great massing of material for the use of those who believe in the open shop and who wish to prove they are right. It is a bulky pamphlet of 248 pages. No price is set upon it, and probably each debating team will be supplied a copy free by the department which issues it. It is an important feature of the employers' campaign which has been organized all over the country for winning the open shop thruout American industry. The third recommended is on the other side of the question. It is not so exclusively partisan as is the so-called encyclopedia. but the author makes it clear that he is seeking to expose the animus of a campaign which in his judgment is unjust to labor and inimical to the public interests. It is a pamphlet of 61 pages, and the material is all carefully selected. The Bureau which publishes it sets a price of fifty cents, but the writer is informed that a special rate of twenty-five cents is granted to all students. Bibliography Our pamphlet does not contain a bibliography. But two of the publications recommended above contain admirable book lists, and references to periodicals. In the Hand-Book, "The Closed Shop", the bibliography is most exhaustive, not to say absolutely exhausting. Probably nothing of any value recently publisht up to the date of the issue of the book has been omitted. A much better working book-and-periodical list appears in the last mentiond publication, "The Open Shop Drive." li'. I THE OPEN SHOP 7 With these helps any debater can go quite as far as his time and library resources will permit him to go. New pro- paganda literature is appearing all the time. While the question has been pretty well thresht out in the general press, yet new articles appear in the magazines frequently. If you will file your name with the Open Shop Department of the National Association of Manufacturers, 50 Church Street, New York City, and with the offices of the American Federation of Labor, Washington, D. C, probably considerable pamphlet and leaflet material can be sent you. In the former case no price seems to be set upon the publications. The Federation of Labor is apparently not so well supplied with propaganda funds, and makes a charge on most of its leaflets and pamphlets Purpose of the Debate It is not to decide this momentous quesJon. Fortunately or unfortunately we do not have the chance to decide it. Reason and the public interest do not as yet appear to be controlling factors in practical decisions in this field. You will be pro- foundly impresst with the manner in which self-interest and class-interest seem to dominate. Few questions are now so cumberd with clap-trap, efforts to play to the galleries, and cloud real isues with appeal to sacred principles of Americanism. Debaters on both sides will be imprest with this. The purpose of the debate is not to cram you with informa- tion on the basis of which you can take a determining hand when you have fuiisht your course of study and have enterd in- dustry, either as a laborer or an employer. By that time the industrial situation may have entirely changed, and the present controversy be an inconsequential relic of history. You are debating a question which is decidedly open, and should be treated with an open mind. The decision reach t today may need to be reverst tomorrow, or the whole controversy set aside to make way for a new approach to the whole question. The purpose of the debate is not even to give you a chance to win. The peril of debating primarily to win for one side or the other is now so generally recognized that the debating sys- tem in some states has been re-organized so as to test each in- dividual and each team for its ability in all-'round thinking and discussion, rather than for his or its abilty to win by any and every device. The decision, so far as a decision was rendered, in the famous h I 8 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA Lincoln-Douglas debate in Illinois, before the Civil War, was given to Douglas. If Lincoln had died the day after it closed, the general comment would have been that a rough-and-ready, sincere and likable sort of a chap had made a good try, but that he was betting on the wrong horse, and his losing was a fore- gone conclusion. It is too bad that our school debates cannot by some device be given something like the reality which such discussions have in adult life, so that, win or lose, the debaters with real insight and conviction may finally get his reward. As a matter of fact, each debater who throws himself into our dis- cussion, not to make the worse appear the better reason, but to get at the truth, and make the truth weigh for all its sub- stance, will find a great reward, one which far transcends the value of a decision this way or that from never-so-wise-and-just a group of judges. Thoro Think'ng The real purpose of our debate is thus to bring you to sus- taind, comprehensive, balanced, and unprejudiced thinking, and to cultivate the power to express your thoughts with convincing effect. It is of the greatest moment in securing this and that a real live question like ours should have been chosen. You can work up genuine enthusiasm over it. You will be identified with the industrial system in some connection very soon, actively identified, and it makes a vast deal of difference how this ques- tion is handld today and tomorrow. It makes a d'fFerence to you r'ght away, and tl e difference will be felt all the rest of your life. If it does nothing else, this debate ought to open your eyes to the peril of class-spirit, an unreasoning and self-in- terested partisanship. You will be tempted again and again to cry out with the pr'nce of anc'ent Florence where two rival families of the nobility were forever scrapping with each other, and filling the streets with their broils. His patience was finally exhausted and he calld down "A plague upon both your houses!" But his impatience did not quell the broils nor establish peace. And neither will yours. This question is distressingly confused and complicated by senseless bickering, but it will not be settld by your turning away in disgust. The question itself rises above the claptrap and self-seeking which vitiates much of the argument employd to support now one and now the other side. THE OPEN SHOP 9 The very fact that you are not just now in the thick of the fray will enable you to rise with the real question, and see big- ger and clearer than do the partisans thru whose oceans of dis- cussion you are calld upon to wade. And if you will cultivate the kind of thinking which alone will make head and tail of this confusion of words and ideas, it will give you a balance which you will not entirely lose when you are yourself forced into the fray ,or one like it in coming years. You will often find yourself praying, as you study this question, "The Lord save the society of my day from this kind of a mix-up!" He will not answer your prayer if you carry into it the same kind of narrowness and partisan spirit which afflicts so many of the leaders of the pre- sent controversy. The Plan of the Bulletin The plan of our bulletin is transparent. At the first are articles and discussions which mainly support the affirmative of the question. Then follow articles and discussion mainly supporting the negative. Then there will be found short sections of general discussion, partly supporting one side and partly the other. And finally, in a brief sketch, the attempt is made to set forth the weaknesses and strength of either side of the question. As already stated, this bulletin does not give a bibliography. Nor does it detail questions for study. That sort of material is fully worked out in the additional publications above recom- mended, and it would involve needless expense to duplicate their lists here. It is most important that the three publications re- commended should be secured. The expense may be an em- barrassment to a few. Follow the suggestion made: that the debaters of opposing teams in the same town unite in securing a set of the publications. If you have not the necesary small sum of money between you, your principal will see that school funds supply you, or that interested citizens of your town pro- vide the small sum needed. This is a man-size question, and is just as good for the girls as for the boys. Those of you who master this question will be far on your way toward that goal of intelligent citizen- ship which the society of today so seriously lacks, and which the society of your day must gain if it is to survive and make progress. A fair field, good luck, and a real triumph to each of you, win or lose! • i. Il; ■ m mm. if MAINLY FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE CLOSED SHOP ARBITRARY AND INEFFICIENT Walter Drew is Counsel for the National Erectors' Asso- ciation of New York, an organization of employers. He wa^ an important witness before the Industrial Relations Commis- sion in May of 1915. The following extended discussion by him IS an address which has been recently publisht in a leaflet or pamphlet by the National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America. It is their pamphlet Number 49 Copies can be secured free by addressing their offices at 50 Church Street. New York City. It is printed here as setting torth clearly the point of view of large numbers of employers, and, as may be assumed from a statement in the text, a large number of the Chambers of Commerce throughout the United States. The publication bears the title: "The Open or Closed Shop.^" If signs are not misleading, the public considers the labor question its most important present problem. The reason is not hard to find. During the war people generally came to under- stand that the real battle was a battle, not of armies, but of workshops. Now that the war is over, we find ourselves with all Its waste and destruction to be replaced, as well as with several years of neglected work to be made up. In the face of this great need we find industry with reduced efficiency and impaired morale. Small wonder, then, that Society should discover that It has a vital concern in the matter of how and under what conditions its work is performd. Today we are to consider some of the aspects of the work prob.em which have to do with the question of the open or closed shop. And upon this question it is significant to note that puDl:c opinion is showing a definite and decided trend From one end of the country to the other-in hundreds of cities and m nearly every s'ate-open shop movements embracing entire communities have sprung up during the past year. The main feature of these movements is that they have been largely >pontaneous and have proceeded either from the general public THE OPEN SHOP U or from business and commercial organizations which in times past have maintained a neutral attitude on labor matters. Who would have dreamd three years ago that the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce would declare in favor of the open shop? Or that the United States Chamber of Commerce would sub- mit the question of the open shop to its membership for a refer- endum vote? And do you recall that on that referendum, 1665 Chambers of Commerce and other business organizations voted in favor of the open shop declaration, and only 4 voted against it? Many of those Chambers of Commerce today are actively engaged in local open shop efforts. Now it happens, also, that during the war, and largely through the use of the wartime powers of Government by a friendly administration, organized labor doubld its membership and reacht the hi.:.jh water mark of its power and influence in this country. The verdict now being registerd against it in so many communities is largely the result of the use which organized labor made of that power during the war and in the period fol- lowing while the abnormal demand for labor still continud. But you are not here to accept the verdict of others, but rather to endeavor to arrive at one of your own. It is the public weak- ness to seek always for heroes or scapegoats, and having paid homage to the one or meted out punishment to the other, to forget the matter. The present disfavor in which the unions find themselves is much like that which only a few years ago was directed against combinations of capital. And at that time, you remember, all business was under suspicion and the good business man sufferd with the bad. The great fact is that we are all human and actuated by much the same motives and impulses. Different groups or classes of men average up much the same. For the bride-taker, you have the bnbe-giver. For the grasping union man, you have the profiteer, and for the human tendency to abuse power not accompanid by due responsibility you have all of us. Power without full and proper responsibility for its use — that was the trouble with the business combinations, and that is the trouble today with unionism. To call labor leaders hard names or to send a Brindell or two to jail will not improve matters so long as the condition continues which made abuse and exploitation possible. What is most needed in connection with the labor question is truth and clear thinking, less heat and more light. V \2 THE UMVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA Sympathy and Wages A few weeks ago, a distinguisht gentleman, Mr. Clarence Darrow. spoke to you from the platform m defense of the closed shop. He said, I believe, that the question was largely one of point of view— whether you were for captain or for labor. As for him. his sympathies were with the worker and he wanted him to have more. In Mr. Darrow's home city the building trades workers, wih their closed-shop control have monopoly wages for which they give a very low output They refuse to reduce tlieir present rate of $1.25 an hour. Only one- third of them are employd in spite of the great need for hous- mg. Aside from the question of public welfare, is it better for these workers th-msclves to maintain this condition rather than to seek employment for all thru a lower wage and increast effi- tiency? In open-shop Los Angeles, the number of wage-earners in the period from 1899 to 914 increast from 5.173 to 31,352 an in- crease of approximately 500 per cent. Oakland. Seattle. Port- land and other Western cities showd increases in the same per od of 100 to 200 per cent. In closed shop San Francisco, where the •ndu>tnal life of the city had been absolutelv dominated by organized labor, there was a decrease in the number of wage- earners from 32.555 to 3l,7S8, in spite of the great natural advan- tage wnich San Francisco had over the other cities. Without considering the ereat increase in the Coast population, the in- dustries of San Francisco were not even supporting as many workers as they did twenty years ago. Is this a good thing for the workers? In England the worker generally receives a half or a third 01 tr.e American wage for s'milar work, and under the rules of hn union does a half or a third of the work done by the Ameri- can. ^ Is not this ratio between wage and output illuminating and IS It not clear that even the closed-shop power of the union >s not able to force the payment of a wage out of proportion to the workers production? It may be possible, then, that the closed shop means less instead of more for the working man But the question of wages is not one of sympathv, or, in t.^e long run of un:on power. The sympathetic emploVer who pays more than the business warrants will find himself out of business and the union whose power forces a price for labor above what the market will absorb will find its members with- THE OPEN SHOP 13 out work. In 1840, according to figures of the National Industrial Conference Board, the average wage of labor in this country for artisans was $8.10 per week, and for common labor $4.90 per week, or a little more than half. In 1915 the artisan's wage was $19.90 per week, and that of the common laborer, $10 75 or still a little more than half. During the war the rate of artisans nicreast to $42.00 a week-an increase of 111 per cent, over the 1915 rate— and that of laborers to $26.00 a week— an increase of 142 per cent. Yet common labor, which has maintaind since 1840 Its ratio with skild labor and even increast it in war time, IS unorganized, while the power of the unions has been exerted almost wholly in the skilld trades. The larger production of modern industry with is machinery and improved methods has under economic laws brought about the workers' increast wage whether the employer wisht it or not. Position of the Worker— True Function of Union But we must not follow the persuasive Mr. Darrow farther from our main theme, and in coming to a closer view of the shop-open or closed-let us see in what position the modern worker finds himself therein. In the old days of individual production, he workt side by side with his cmplover The article which they made was deliverd to and used "by some member of the immediate community. He saw and understood the whole process of production, distribution and consumption and his handi-work was a source of satisfaction and pride to him' Under the present factory system, he now finds himself a mere cog m a vast complicated machine. A hundred men or more make the article formerly made by one. The old human contact IS gone as well as the joy and pride in good workanship. The worker does not know where the product goes, and he has no conception of the relat'on between the price paid for it bv the final consumer and his own wage and security of emplovment one legacy he has from the old days, and that is the fear of imemployment. It is natural and proper that there should be a greater cndency for the worker to organize under the present system than tormerly. His need for guidance and assistance along the nght path has increast. and there are useful and valuable func- tions which organizations of workmen could perform in the worker s interest and for the good of Society. It is all import- . / f 14 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA ant that the worker should regain a sense of the dignity and im- portance of work and that he should understand his true value in the present industrial system. He should know that with all its complexity modern industry yet performs a social service of immeasurably greater value than that of the old individual system, and his work is part of that greater social service. He should learn that in the matter of production his interests and those of his employer are the same, no matter how much they may quarrel about division, and he should appreciate the vital necessity to himsr^lf as well as to Society that industrial enter- prise should be raised to the highest point of efficiency and produ^ctivity possible. Is it not in the worker's own interest that he should know that greater efficiency results in lower costs and prices, greater demand for the product, and hence for the labor to make it, and that thru this there comes to him a greater security of employment and a betterment of wages? Is it not the true and proper function of the union to teach these things to the worker, and is there anything inconsistent between doing this and upholding his rights and interests with all the power of the organization? War Theory— The Closed Shop And now we come to Mr. Darrow's major premise, in the trank and honest statement of which he has performd a real service in clarifying the discussion. His position is that be- tween employer and worker there is a fundamental conflict of nitercst and inevitable warfare. Mr. Darrow speaks advisedly in stating the union philosophy, and the serious features of the labor problem today grow out of the fact that unionism has chosen not to follow the path of constructive service open be- fore it, but to adopt the war theory as a basis of action. Under this theory reliance is placed entirely upon force, and the power of combination and of class action is devclopt in order to create and use this force. In war, the morale of the army must be preservd by stimulating hatred of the enemy. The Preamble of the Constitution of the American Federation of Labor, adopted in 1881, recites: "A struggle is going on in all the nations of the civilized world between the oppressors and the opprest of all countries. a struggle between the capitalist and the laborer, which grows in intensity from year to year, and will work disastrous results to the toiling millions if they are not combined for mutual pro- tection and benefit." There is no suggestion here, or in the entire document, of ^ THE OPEN SHOP 15 y any constructive teaching or effort. Its note of class interest is the keynote. The adoption by the unions of the war theory and of the fundamental concept of force naturally colors and controls their whole philosophy and program. Under such a doctrine the workers must be brought to look upon the em- ployer and upon Society at large as oppressors. The closed shop in its present form is the concrete ex- pression of the doctrine of force. It is a shop closed to non- members of the union. It represents a monopoly of employ- ment in favor of the union in the particular shop, as well as a vantage ground from which attacks may be launcht upon other shops. From the refusal of union men to work with non-union men in individual cases, there has developt the idea of using the closed shop as a means of securing nation-wide control of in- dustry, and the great national labor organizations have long been co-operating to this end. Statements of Labor Leaders Some of the acknowledgd spokesman for organized labor can themselves best state its position. Said Mr. John Mitchell in 1903: "With the rapid extension of trade unions, the tendency is toward growth of compulsory membership in them, and the time will doubtless come when this inclusion will become as general and will become as little of a grievance as the com- pulsory attendance at school. The inalienable right of a man to work will then be on a par with the inalienable right of a child to play truant, and the compulsion exercised by the trade unions will be likend to that of a State which in the interests of Society torces an education upon the child, even though the child and its parents are utterly and irreconcilably opposed to It. ^ Mr. J. W. Sullivan of the Typographical Union is one of the acknowledged spokesmen and leaders of organized labor. In the "Weekly News Letter" of the American Federation of Labor, October 25, 1919, discussing the right of wage-earners to organize in labor unions and to bargain collectively, he said: "Once this foundation right is in good faith accepted by employers, they take upon themselves the obligation of modify- ing all alleged abstract rights of wage workers in general which are inconsistent with it as a basic and encompassing principle In accepting this right, they concede to an association of wage- workers the right ot its self-preservation, and this includes the right, when necessary to that end, to refuse to work with per- sons wnose acts would tend to destrov the association" In other words, the worker's right of individual contract \( ■*-»- •s 16 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA • which the Supreme Court of the United States has held to be part of the personal liberty guaranteed by our Constitution, is, . according to the union view, a mere "alleged" abstract right, and the employer who accepts the union idea of collective bar- gaining must modify or deny this "alleged" right by denying employment to the non-union worker. The union, therefore, not only intends to use its own powers of compulsion to force the worker to abandon his individual rights and accept union con- trol, but intends that the employer shall join in that compulsion. How far it will go in the kind of force it is willing to em- ploy against the worker is shown in the official report of Mr. Luke Grant to the United States Commission on Industrial Relations, made in 1915. Mr. Grant is a union carpenter, and both before and after his report was officially connected with labor union?. He said: "In recent years there has been a markt change in the na- ture of tl c violence comnvtted in the building trades and m the methods used. The ordinary workman who in former days wa'^ apt to u.-e his fists on the head of a scab for the sake ot the cau^c. seldom does so now. His place has been taken by the professional thug and gunman. Violence has become com- mercialized and made more brutal. Assaults on non-union workmen are seldom made openly as in former days when the strikers did the assaulting. The professional slugger lies in wait for his victim, assaults him with a bludgeon or probably .hoots him to death. * * * li the destruction of property seems more expedient than the slugging of non-union men, the pro- fessional will attend to that. * * * That such a system of or- ganized thuggery obtains in many of the building trades un:ons i-? beyond dispute." ^ .. , -kt Here is a typical extract from the Bridgemen s Magazine, the official organ of the Iron Worker's Union. It is from the report of a Business Agent of the Union and refers to some open-shop work at Salt Lake City. The report says: "Thev built a 12 foot board fence around the job, so the bunch could not see them, but some ungracious fellows hoisted a few rocks over the fence. They must have been good shots for they got a couple of them, and the rest of the snakes got 'cold feet' and quit. This was on Friday, ["",%! V^^Hr^w.o'f following Monday our men went to work * * * The boys ot \'o 27 fought nobly for their rights, which were principle ano unionism on our side and the open shop policy on the Mmneap- olis Steel and Machinery Company's part. Defiance of Courts It is fairly common knowledge that unions are legally irres- ponsible, generally speaking, and that the writ of injunction to ( I THE OPEN SHOP 17 prevent thrcatend injury is practically the only remedy against unlawful union activity. In pursuing the doctrine of force, or- ganized labor through the boycott, the sympathetic strike, the general strike and other militant methods has frequently invaded the rights of third parties and of the public. The use of the injunction in such cases has resulted in a bitter attack by the leaders of organized labor upon our courts and judicial system. Said Mr. Mitchell: "If a judge were to enjoin me from doing something that I had a legal, a constitutional and moral right to do. I would violate the injunction. I shall, as one American, prc-erve my liberty and the liberties of my people even against the usurpa- tion of the Federal Jud'ciary." Said Mr. Gompers, in a public speech at the time of the Buck Stove and Range Case: "I desire to be clearly understood that when any court undertakes v-'ithout warrant of law by the injunction process to deprive me of my personal rights and my personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution, I shall have no hesitancy iii asserting and exercising those rights." iNfr. Gompers then asserts greater authority than that of the Courts created by the Constitution in the interpretation of his rights under the Constitution. This absurdity would be ridicul- ous if it were not the cloak of Anarchy, for what else is Anarchy than a condition where each man is final judge of his own acts? And Mr. Gompers is the leader, teacher and spokes- man for 4,000,000 workmen. After the injunction was issued against the strike of the coal miners in the Fall of 1919, the Executive Committee of the Federation of Labor issued a bitter statement in criticism of the action of the Government, which concluded: "By all the facts in the case the miners' strike is jusifiable. We endor.-e it. We pledge to the miners the full support of the American Federation of Labor and appeal to the workers and the citizenship of our country to give like endorsement to the men engaged in this momentous struggle." Organized labor, in its application of the doctrine of force, had thus arrived at the point where it was willing to use it.'^ strength and resources in defiance of the order of a Federal Court issued upon the suit of the Government itself acting in the interests of the life and industry of the nation. You will remember, also, that in the passage of the Adamson Law, rep- resentative government was suspended and that piece of legis- lation was rusht through Congress under threat of a national strike by the Railway Brotherhoods. And in shame be it said, T— -cr- '>„-.-— ^ ; / iV IS THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA it was made law within the time limit fixt by the Brotherhood chiefs. In discussing this law, Mr. Garretson, President of the Order of Railroad Conductors, said before the New York Economic Club, December 11, 1916: "Industrial war is precisely of the same character as actual war. No battle has been fought in establishing the right of mankind, either real or fancid, where the hospital hasn't been tilld afterwards, and the corpses left upon the field. And it is just so in industrial war. If you complain that four hundred thousand men held up the Government, what will eight millions of them do, if they can, to hold up the Government?" Class Interest vs. Society The leaders of organized labor recognize that the final issue lies between the unions as representing a distinct class interest and Society at large. They are not content with their present measure of legal immunity, but make it clear that it is their pur- pose not only to extend closed-shop control through method." of coercion and force to industry as a whole, but that in the exercise of the power thus acquired they will not be bound by the rules and laws which govern other classes in Society, or even by the authority of the State itself. For a number of year? past, there has regularly been added to appropriation measures of the Federal Congress a rider providing that none of the money appropriated to the Department of Justice should be used in the prosecution of labor unions. In July last. Mr. Frank Morrison, Secretary of the Federa- tion, in a statement in the New York Times entitled "Labor LHtimatum to the Public," said: "The workers will not concede that the community has any purpose or intention to render justice to the workers should it force itself into participation in industrial relations." Also, that the workers will not "yield the right to quit work singly or collectively when in their judgment the conditions ■jnder which they work justify such action." and "will not submit their cause to adjudication by Utopian schemes based on sen- timentalism." He also said (referring to the army, the courts, and the egislatiire) that "the trade union should be permitted to func- tion without interference by any of these agencies," and that "there cm be no question in modern industry which cannot be ieterm'nd quickly and satisfactorily through the trade union philosophy." On the social and political side, therefore, the trade union philosophy under the doctrine of force involves denial of per- I 1 •^ [ THE OPEN SHOP 19 sonal liberty, development of class consciousness, stimulated hostility to the employer and Society, a monopoly of employ- ment, and the acquisition of an autocratic control of industry above the law ai^d the State. This is a big price for Society to pay for the closed shop as a permanent institution. Is it worth the price? Economic Aspects of Closed Shop This brings us to a consideration of the economic aspects of the closed shop, and we come at the outset to the important factor that is missing in Mr. Darrow's war theory. Under that theory no account is taken of the fact that before any division between employer and employe, or any quarrel about division, there must be production, and that the greate • the product the more there will be to divide and the better will the wants of all people be provided for. We have noted that under the war theory the worker is veiwd, not as a factor in production but as a soldier in the ranks of labor's army. In order to maintain the morale and discipline of the army, the soldiers must all be upon the same level, and this necessity explains the unions de- mand for the flat wage rate and for labor standardization and the opposition to piecework or bonus systems or any other method of work which encourages individual initiative and tends to bring about inequalities in the wage rate. The resylt of all this is to deprive the worker of all incentive and to make the efficiency of the least competent the common denominator for the efficiency of all. The spirit of hostility and of armed truce prevailing in the closed shop are also serious obstacles to the development of en-operation or of efficient productive methods. Restriction of Output But there is a still more serious phase of the matter. Out of the worker's fear of unemployment and his lack of under- standing of modern industry has emerged the idea that by doing less work he will help to make employment for more workers. In England, where union control is almost absolute, this idea is practically universal among the workers, and in this country it is well establisht wherever the unions have long had a closed- shop control. With the power acquired by the closed-shop, the worker can put this vicious misconception into actual practice, and the individual not only reduces his own efforts, but often- times restrictions on output are enforced by unions rules and regulations. u T 20 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA \ / Union leaders do not correct, but rather encourage this idea. In 1887 Mr. Gompers said that "So long as there is one man who seeks employment, the hours of labor are too long." In 1908 he urged the adoption of an eight-hour law upon a Government Commission of Nova Scotia, and said. "A man cannot do as much work in eight hours as in nine or ten. The shorter day must lessen production and make room for more men. We find the echo of this in the 1920 Convention of the American Federation of Labor in the adoption of the report of the Committee on Shorter Work Day. which declard in favor of a s'x-hour day as means of furnishing employment to the members of different organizations. The report also said: "The words 'increast production' have a magic sound to the profiteer- ing manufacturer. Your Committee believes that the employer should have a fair return fi-om labor for a fair day's pay. but it resents the idea that there must be a continually increast re- turn from labor solely for the benefit of such employed." These are the views and theories Icarnd by the union man in his organization and from his chosen leaders. He is never told that he owes a fair day's work to himself even more than to his emp'oyer. and that his own interests are vitally aflfected by efficiency and productivity. Neither is he told that by de- creasing production he is setting in motion forces which tend, toward unemployment and decreast wages. It is hard to under- stand this silence on matters so vital to the worker's interests, and not only silence, but actual misrepresentation. The only explanation is that if the worker were permitted to see clearly how great is the mutuality of interest between him and his em- ployer, he would not as willingly play his part in the war pro- gram cf the rnion. Consider, if you will, what would be the effect upon our country's welfare and progress if this war pro- gram should he successful and if closed shop control of our in- dn:^tries shor.ld become generally established. Is there anything of benefit in the closed shop to the worker, to industry, or to the public, to justify the payment of the heavy price it entails. Conspiracy vs. Public But the closed shop union and certain groups of employers have discoverd a mutuality of interest which Mr. Darrow does not mention. Much of the collective bargaining which is pointed to as an example of harmony and peace is really a conspiracy again :t the public In a study of the Closed Shop, publisht in \ . a '* < '•\ THE OPEN SHOP 21 1911 by Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Stockton says: "Neither employers nor unions have had much to say con- cerning the advantage of 'exclusive agreements.' * * * Em- ployers who are parties to them obtain a great advantage over competitors in localities where the unions are strong. But while the closed shop under such conditions may be an advantage to t 'osc employers with whom a union agrees to deal exclusively ^ --.^ M *^^ '"Merest suffers inasmuch as competition is effectivefv stitld. In a Government Report issued by the United States Com- missioner of Labor in 1904 on "Restriction of Output" man\ such agreements are described. Here are one or two. The Re- port says: 1' P'^^^ Stonecutters' Association and the New York Stone trade Associat on have entcrd into a closed agreement by means, of which the members of the emplovcrs' association are able to reimburse themselves for whatever disadvantages they suffer in respect to the various restrictions imposed by the union. By this agreement, the members of the union refu<;e to work on stone that is cut, planed or sawd outside New York and they refuse to work for non-members of the employers' association. •' Here is another. After describing a similar exclusive agree- ment in the marble industry and the fact that the amount of work performd by union men was "one-half of what should be expected," the Report says: ''Yet by excluding marble cut outside New York and ex- cludiug outside contractors from entering New York the marble employers are ab^e to recoup themselves from the building nuiustry of New York." These examples were typical of conditions in many other trades. In the Lockwood Investigation such combinations between groups of employers and unions were disclosed in trade after trade, and in every instance the power of the contractors to control the market against outside competition rested upon the closed-shop control of the union. The outside contractor who m;gnt secure a contract in New York could find no union men to perform it. If he employd others, he was met with a sym- pathetic strike by the unions in the Brindell Building Trades Council and forced to abandon the work to some local contrac- tor in the combine. Here, then, is the final fruit and flower of the closed shop Here is harmony and peaceful collective bargaining between the parties, with their feet under the same table. The union gets a monopoly of labor and all its demands and. restrictions i / 1 -7 .J 21 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA acceded to. The employer gets a monopoly of the market and ihe public pays the final bill. These combinations are' not peculiar to New York. They exist in many large cities where closed shop control of the building industry has become estabhsht. They exist, also, in other industries where condi- tions are favorble to their development. The point is that they are the logical outgrowth of the spirit and purpose of the closed shop, and if the employers of this countrv are ever forced to accept the closed shop through the acquiescence or sympathy of the public, the public will have no one but itself to blame if it finds that the two parties have stopt fighting and jond forces against it. Industrial peace and harmonv thus se- cured will be a more serious matter for the public than' indu^^trial warfare. Building Industry The closed shop is strongest in the building industrv and there we can see the results of its long-establisht control'. Be- s:des the exclusive agreement, we find thirty or forty trade<^ wl:o tie up work for long periods with internal quarrels over jurisdiction, yet unite in the use of the sympathetic strike boy- cott and other union methods of warfare against anv attempt to quest:on their power. We find "industrial demo'cracy" to consist of the autocratic control of a building trades council with supreme power to call strikes on or off in any or all trade, and without vote of the rank and file of the unions. We find all manner of arbitrary rules and restrictions affecting output and increasing labor cost. We find unions refusing to admit new members, but charging non-union men for "permits" to work. As to eflficiency. it has sunk to the lowest degree A recent Report of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce say. that in this city the building trades workers do only two-thirds of the work done before the war. Before the war. however, the efficiency o the building tradesmen was far below what a fair normal day s work should be. The bricklayer in union com- munities now lays 350 to 400 bricks a day, where before the war he laid 800. and a normal fair day's w^ork would be 1500 Recently, a local union of Steamfitters in Buffalo broke away from the American Federation of Labor and announced ts adoption of the open shop in a strong resolution. One of the chief purposes outlined in the resolution was to give an in- creast production on the part of the workers which they had been prevented from doing, and in a public statement the B«' THE OPEN SHOP 23 ^y ness Agent of the Union calM attention to the fact that the average steamfitter could erect and connect from four to six radiators m an eight-hour day, but that in the past they had been hm.ted to erecting and connecting not more than one or rjfif, ' '^.^''^.'■^'"^'^"^ P" day,-in other words, that union steamfitters m the past had been compeld to hmit their output not to exceed one-third or one-fourth of their natural ability When you consider that the building contractor is largely a broker, that each job is a completed transaction, and that he does not have to send his product to outside markets to com- pete with the products of other localities, it becomes clear whv ;t has been easy for the unions to secure control of building Iro'fit"'"?H°' "'''' °" ""''"'""^ ^^ •'^ ^^^' ""^™. adds hfs profit, and the owner pays the bill. Too much, therefore, can- not be expected of the builder in the way of reform, unless he s assured of the backing of the owner and the pubhi which in nnes past e has not always had. It is for the community Z take the n,.t,at,ve in putting conditions in the building industry upon a better basis and insist that its rights be recognized and respected both by the builders and the unions. Collective Bargaining -But,'' says Mr, Darrow, "we must have collective bargain- ■ng and abor can't possibly bargain without the closed shop. Kemove the union, and there is no bargain left." This is a stock argument. Let us look into it a bit M,.J" "''k^ 1 '''""• °""-''' °^ ^^-^'"sive agreement, how can there poss.bly be real bargaining in a closed shop? A real bar- gam presumes that the parties stand upon an equal footing. In he closed shop there can be only a demand and a surrender or he possession of the power of monopoly by the union gKe^ It an oyerpowermg advantage. In practice, there are few if ny of the features of bargaining found in the closed shop, t'h Tk union 7J '"'^TT-' "■""""" "^'' ^''^■-'■-"' °f ' ■"-• appli at on of "" """"''""'' ''''''''' " ''^''^''^' "'^-"^ «he application of coercion to compel its acceptance Agam, m the closed shop, the employer does not deal with h., own employes. He deals with an organization largely com- posed of the employes of others. The dealing of the union" arnd on m furtherance of the class-conscious interests of h men7 Th?' "', "' '" u'" '"■"'''' "' "^"^ ^-P'^^"'^ -tablish- nient. The employer, then, .s not permitted to bargain in the w I 1. tr' 24 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA 1"ght of what is best for himself, and his own employes in the particular business. More than that, under the philosophy of the closed shop, the class-conscious organization with which he deals is a hostile one, seeing only the conflict of interest be- tween the parte.-. The factor of cooperation in building up the business for the mutual interests of both parties is left out of consideration. This violates one of the fundamental prin- ciples laid down by the President's Second Conference in its final report. The report says: "The griding thought of the Conference has been that the r'ght relationship between employer and employe can be best promoted by the deliberate organization of that relationship. That organ zation should begin within the plant itself.* ♦ * Such orgaiiization should provide for the joint action of mana- gers and tnipioycs in dialing with their common interests.* * * The general principles governing such organ'zation are stated at length under the title 'Employe Representation.' * * * Em- ploye representation must not be considered solely as a device for settling grievances. It can find success only if it also em- bodies co-optrat"on in the problem of production." Here is a principle absolutely lacking in closed-shop bargaining. The Conference d-isagrees also with Mr. Darrow when he says that labor cannot bargain without the closed shop. The report says: "The term 'collective barga'ning' as herein used means negotiation between aji employer or an association of employers on the one s;cle and the employes acting as a group on the other. There are two types of collective bargaining as thus defined: one in which the employes act as a group through the trade or labor union, the other in which they act as a group through some other plan of employe representation. * * * While there are some employers who still insist upon the policy of dealing with their employes individually, and not as a group, we think their number is diminishing," The report also says: "Employe representation is operating successfully under union agreements in organized shops. It is operating in non- union shops, and it is operating in shops where union and non- union men work side by side." As a matter of fact, there is undoubtedly more collective bar- gaining today in the open shops of this country than in the closed shops. A good deal of this is with regular trade unions who have not grown strong enough to secure the closed shop. That the unions cannot exist without the closed shop is belied by the fact that they do exist and have always existed, for only a small percentage of unions have secured and held the closed shop, although unionism itself has been steadily increasing in THE OPEN SHOP 25 1 ■■■» I K N \T / Pi numbers and power. The truth of the matter is that the attain- ^ ment of the closed shop is the beginning of the downward course * for the union. With the power thus acquired it no longer is compeld to present itself as a desirable and responsible contract- mg agent, and th- forces of exploitation and demoralization be- gm their destructive work. Giving less and demanding more, and ever reaching out for more and more power, the closed shop union finally finds itself arrayd against Society itself. • The Open Shop It remains to say a word about the open shop. We are mis- led, I believe, in thinking of it as a definite plan or system or as a solution of the labor question. It is none of these things. It is merely a shop that is not closed— where both union and non-union men nre cmployd and where the parties under the free play of economic forces work out their relations with each other just as people do in other walks in life. These relations take different forms in different shops. There is individual bar- gaming and different kinds of collective bargaining. There is profit-sharing and various plans of wage payment. There is al=o harmony and discord, co-operation and misunderstanding., good management and bad, over-reaching and fair play, for the parties in the open shop are the same humans we started with and the millennium is not yet here. But this may be said. In the open shop, management is not cripld in developing its full efiFiciency; the welfare of the particular shop is the basis of the relation between" the parfes, the opportunity to work and to develop his skill and earning power is not denied the worker; and the door to exper'ment and progress toward better condi- tions and relations has not been closed. Ninety per cent of our industries and th-r employes operate under the open shop to- day. Our position and leadership as an industrial nation has been built up under open-shop operation. Our wages and stand- ard of living of our workers are the highest in the world and the highest known to history. Whatever defects, or weak- nesses, or injustices are incident to the open shop, one fact must be clear, and that is that they are not to be cured or a better order establisht thru the substitution of the closed shop. As to the employer, he has not that power of exploitation which IS commonly attributed to him. He, too, is governd by economic law. He must pay for efficiency and merit what it is worth, or it will find another market. The very influences ^1 .^»:«^ THE OPExN SHOP n 26 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA which widen the sale of his product and increase his profits also widen the demand for labor and tend to force him to pay a better wage in order to secure that product. The final demand which fixes the wages of the worker comes from the consumer of goods, and the employer can no more prevent the operation of this law than he can stop water running down-hill. In the long run, the worker's interest in dealing with the employer will be more surely protected by the laws and forces that control them both than by any power he can exert through an organiza- tion committeed to the destructive fallacies of the closed shop. The Employer And may I say one last word about the employer? He or- ganizes the forces of production. He is the natural leader of his workmen, and is able by instruction, example and fair deal- ing to bring to bear constantly upon them influences for right- thinking and action and for loyalty to the common enterprise. He cannot escape responsibility if he neglect this opportunity and they become alienated and followers of false leaders and vicious doctrines. His position also carries with it larger obliga- tions and he should consider himself not as engaged in business entirely for individual profit, but as a trustee for the beneficial use of the forces of production that he controls. The making of profits can no longer be considcrd the sole test of business success. Industry has not performd its function unless it brings betterment of conditions and increased comforts to the worker as well as to the owner and unless its product is made available to the general public at prices as low as possible thru efficiency, co-operation and unrestricted production. This broad view by the employer as a working principle in his own business and in his association with other employers is not altruism, but is being found to be a sound, constructive business philosophy. NATIONAL MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION AND THE OPEN SHOP The National Manufacturers' Association of the United States of America is one of the oldest of such organizations, and is perhaps the strongest in the country. It maintains a large suite of offices at 50 Church Street, New York City, and has recently opend a special department on the open shop, which is pressing the campaign vigorously. A great volume of literature advocating the open shop is issued by this department, and is sent freely to all who ask for copies. V li 1 ^* T Their pamphlet Number 48 contains several pages of con- cisely stated arguments. The following reprint preserves the page headings and certain explanatory notes used in the pam- phlet.^ The title used for the entire pamphlet is "Why the Open Shop''. The back cover gives a "Declaration of Labor Prin- ciples" of the Association, which is used in other of their publi- cations, and is omitted here since it does not bear exclusvely on our question. A few "fillers" used in the pamphlet are also omitted from our print. The Definitions The Open Shop exists wherever and whenever the follow- ing labor principle enunciated by the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, appointed by President Roosevelt, in 1902, is practist: Xo per-on shall be refused employment, or in any way dis- criminated against on account of membership or non-memher- ship in any labor organization, and there shall be no discrimina- tion against, or interference with, any employe who is not a member of any labor organization by members of such organiza- tion. * ^ The Bridgcmen's Magazine, official organ of the Iron Work- ers' Union, defines the open shop as follows (issue of December 1905): ^ If the employer will not yield without coercion, and the union is unable to coerce him, then non-unionists as well as unionists may obtain employment and the establishment is con- sequently known as an open shop. The Bridgenicn's Magazine defines the closed shop: Closed shop, then, is the term for a shop, factory, store or other industrial place where workmen cannot obtain employment without being members in good standing of the labor union of their trade. This is demanded by the unions * * * They insist that the shop shall be closed against all employes who, not ^al- ready belonging to the union of their trade, refuse to join it 1 he 1 rinting Pressmen, Constitution and By-Laws, 1909, declare: The words "union pressroom" as herein employd shall be construed to refer only to such pressrooms as are operated wholly by umon employes, in which union rules prevail, and in which the union has been formally recognized by the employer Ihese definitions bring out the following points clearly: " 1. Under the closed shop only members in good standing ot the unions may obtain employment. Open shop employers refuse to discriminate on account of "membership or non-mem- bership in any labor organization" and "non-unionists as well as unionists may obtain employment." >qp m «"«ii tv-.- 1/ 28 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA ^ 2. The cosed shop "shall be closed" against men who "re- fuse to join the union. The open shop denies the right of union members to discriminate against "any employe who is not a member of a labor organization." 3. The closed shop makes the employer agree to employ only union members, and tells the independent worker that if he refuses to jo n" the union he shall not have work. 4. In the closed shop "union rules prevail." The employer m other words, must yield to the "union rules" where they affect the conduct of his establishment. WHY THE EMPLOYER OPPOSES THE CLOSED SHOP 1. The employer is asked to make contracts and agree- ^ ments with organizations which are not legally responsible for tl eir fulfilment. 2. The rules of closed-shop unions arc made by men 95 rer cent of whom are not employd in any one establishment and l.ave no knowledge of its problems. National, as well as local rules govern the establishments. The working conditions in every plant are established by outside control. 3. The^e rules specifically limit the number of apprentices that may be employed, thus reduting the number of skilled workers available for industry. Employers would also benefit by the .creatcr buying power "of a large number of skild workers. 4. Closed shop rules and customs restrict the amount of work which shnll be performd. Employers are unable to pay the more cftieict.t workers according to their ability. 5. Even where the workers in a closed shop plant are satisfied with their own conditions, the plant mav be closed down because of sympathetic strikes and jurisdictional disputes. 6. Closed shop leaders and small groups of wrong-minded employers can make agreements to deprive other employers of business by shutting off their labor supply. The conditions rcveald in New York exist in many industries and localities. Honest employers recognize that the closed shop leads to "exclusive agreements," which are opposed because they are dishonest, conta*^/ to public policy, and bring fair-minded em- ployers into d:,jepute. Why Emrloyers Favor The Open Shop kJ/'V'\^'' '"''--^^ by Stephen C. Mason, President of the thrpl!n /i''i?''''o ""ur "" T ^^""^^'^"'^^''^' ^^^'»^" especially for' the Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 23, 1921.) 1. Ruies governing plant operation are not made by men who have neither moral nor financial interest or responsibility \ i f}> THE OPEN SHOP 2^ in the success of the individual establishment. 2. It does not, by arbitrarily limiting the number of appren- tices, reduce the number of skild workers available for in- dustry. 3. Closed shop rules, which limit the amount of work a man shall do in a day, will not apply. 4. It will be possible to pay men according to their ability which will give greater production per dollar of wages paid than IS possible under the closed shop. Lower production costs will bring a wider market and larger sales. This will benefit the worker because greater continuity of employment will be pos- sible. 5. Plants will seldom, if ever, be closed down because of sympathetic and jurisdictional disputes and strikes. 6. Agreements by groups of employers with closed shop leaders to deprive other employers of business, such a. the Lockwood investigation in New York has reveald, are not possible. How the Open Shop Benefits the Worker 1. It makes it possible for the worker to get paid accord- ing to what he produces, instead of being held to a "dead level" of efficiency.. The incentive and opportunity for increa^t effi- c:ency and earning power are both present. 2. The union man as well as the independent worker will be able to obtain work without the necessity of agreeing to arbitrary rules and conditions. 3. Under the closed shop, workers who have no trouble with their own employer oftentimes arc idle for weeks at a time because of sympathetic strikes or jurisdictional dispute.' 1 hesc seldom occur under the open shop. 4. As output per dollar increases and manufacturing co^ts are lowerd the manufacturer can lower his prices and enlarge his market. He will be able to work his plant more steadily which means an increast demand for labor. 5. Continuity of employment will increase and wages be steader as (a) sympathetic and jurisdictional troubles are lessend, and (b) the employer's market is increast. 6. Most of the unions have rules which limit the number of apprentices an employer may hire. This makes it impossible for large number of workers to learn skild trades. The union rules force them to remain as unskild workers with lower pay and more chances of unemployment. The open shop has no ] Jgrr-_-&fe5^.*--,fe^:^:3a JO THE UNVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA such rules, makes it possible for more competent and willing workers to become skild, increases the average wage paid, and the total wage paid to the working class, as distinct from the rate of wage that may be temporarily secured by a certain group. Increase in total productivity means an increase in total vvacre?. General living standards are higher under the open 5hop. Why the Public Should Support the Open Shop ( From an art-'clc by Stephen C. Alason. President of the National Association of Manufacturers, written especially for the Philadelphia Public Ledger. January 23, 1921.) The general public should, and eventually, of course, will. Niipport the open shop for these reasons: 1. LTnder the open shop industry, which provides the pub- lic with what it needs, is able to operate more efficiently. There is less waste and unutilized effort. 2. The decrease in sympathetic strikes and jurisdictional disputes means that less hardship and deprivation will come to the innocent bystanders. 3. Decreases in prices will be made possible by (a), lower production costs, because of greater efficiency, (b) more con- tinuous operation thru freedom from sympathetic and juris- dictional controversy. The costs of industry are in the long run paid by the consumer; the inefficiency of the closed shop in- cre.ises the costs or keeps them higher than they should be. 4. Agreements by closed shop leaders, enabling small groups of employers to combine and raise prices will be im- possible under the open shop, which increases competition. 5. Increast wages, by reason of the more efficient worker getting paid according to what he produces, and because of a larger number of skilled workers, mean greater buying power and prosperity for the merchants and other tradesmen. Total wages and buyinj; powers are increast under the open shop. 6. The open shop means the preservation of the principle of the Revolutionary War, a revolt against outside authority in American aft'airs. The body politic has establisht and maintaind fundamental principles upon which the happiness and pros- perity of this nation are based. Equality of opportunity, free- dom of contract and individual liberty are represented and pro- tected in the open shop. Community Benefits of the Open Shop 1. The merchants, tradesmen, and professional men bene- f 4-, 4) -iL . f vr^ fi THE OPEN SHOP 31 fit by the increast total wages under the open shop caused by (a), greater continuity of operations with less unemployment and, (b), more skild workers. 2. Lower prices are made possible by decreast manufac- turing costs. 3. Competition is increast, which also tends to decrease prices. Agreements by closed shop leaders to supply workers only to members of certain employers associations, thus pre- venting other employers from getting business, are impossible Such agreements make it possible for the members of these employers association to drive other employers from the f^eld and increase their prices. 4. Facts and figures prove that open shop communities prosper and grow. San Francisco is a "union" town, and De- troit IS an "open shop" town. In ten years Detroit's wage earners increased from 39,373 to 81,011; in ten years San Fran- cisco s wage earners decreased from 32,555 to 28,244. Taking the twenty principal cities of the United States open shop Indianapolis has the lowest "gross debt" and the second lowest tax rate per $1,000. Open shop Los Angeles ha^ the lowest tax rate per $1,000 assest valuation of property Closed shop San Francisco was tenth. The three towns with the largest population percentage in- crease from 1910 to 1920-Akron, Detroit, and Los Angeles- are all strong "open shop" towns. 5. Communities prosper as industries come. The Em- ployers Association of Indianapolis reports that in 19^0 thirty- one new industries, largely due to open shop conditions, located there. Many industries have left San Francisco becau^^e of the restrictive union domination. The Buffalo Chamber of Com- merce reports that open shop conditions are now bringing many new industries, which will- employ over 20,000 workers. 6. The lessening of friction between emplovers and walk- ing delegates, and the decrease of sympathetic strikes and juris- dictional disputes, mean less injury and suft'ering for the in- nocent bystanders, the public. THE STEEL CORPORATION AND THE OPEN SHOP The two outstanding individuals representing special interests nivolvd m the controversy over the closed or open shop, are Elbert i. Oary, the executive head of the Steel Corporation, and Samu-^I C^ompers, the executive head of the American Federation of I abor JLV^LT === 32 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA They take directly opposing views upon this, as upon many other important industrial questions of the day. In this bu'lctin Mr. Gompcrs is quoted at considerable len-th He has exprest himself frequently, vigorously and in volume upon our specitic question. The same is not true of Mr. Gary, tho hts personal and official convictions have been made clear in public again and again. He has not gone so far and at such length into the merits of the question as a matter of industrial stalesmanshi-j I'or tins reason he cannot be quoted at the length and to the samf^ effect as can Mr. Gompcrs. Each debater, whether of the affirmative or the negative is recommended to secure a copy of the report of Mr. Gary's testi- mony before the Committee on Education and Labor of the United States Senate, investigating the Steel Strike, Octol^er, 1919. This !ias b.cii printed in a separate volume, together with excerpts from numerous addresses made l)y Mr. Gary on industrial problem, sta- ■ tistxs and committee reports. The document wiil be of much direct and indirect service to debaters on both sides of the question. Prob- ably the Steel Corporation wiil supply a reasonable number of c.. -o the debating teams of Oklahoma. We sir-jest that one copy :.>r both of the opposing teams in a given tov.n will suffice Agree between you who shall send for it to l^e used l)y all of you :ntcresi,cl :n the same town and state the fact in your letter " It 15 a bu!ky volume, and there must be considerable expense involved in ;.r :nt;ng and mailino^. As stated above, Mr. Gary's views on the Open Shop cannot be presented in as orderly a form as can those of Mr. Gompers but scattered through his testimony before the Senate Committee there are reterences to the open shop and expressions of his views. Fol- l THE OPEN SHOP 35 1^ unions are now claiming to insist upon, we did not. If you mean the right ot men through committees to present their questions, or any question, yes, in principle. We had nothing to do with the War Labor Board. Senator Walsh: Judge Gary, let me see if I understand your position. You recognize the right of working men to organize? Mr. Gary: Yes. Senator Walsh: You have no objection to unions in your plants. Is that right? Mr. Gary: I do not know what you mean by that. Senator Walsh: You recognize the right of the men to form un.ons Mr. Gary: Yes. Senator Walsh: But you refuse to confer with the rep- resentatives of the unions? Mr. Gary: Yes. Senator Walsh: That is right. Now, what good is there in men having the right to organize if their employer refuses to recognize their officials and confer with them? Mr. Gary: What good is it to them? Senator Walsh: \'cs, of what value is the right of working men to organize if their representatives can not talk to their employer ? Mr. Gary: Could that not be answerd by saying if 10 per- cent of the men join unions and secure a contract with the employer with the labor representatives of that 10 percent, that they then should have the right by so doing, the minority, to drive or to torce or to influence tlie 90 percent of the employes to join the unions? Because that is the inevitable result. Would that be right? Senator Walsh: But is not your position secure when rep- resentatives of organized labor come to you and you say they only represent 10 percent, and you say to them, "I can not talk with you, I can not discuss this matter, you only represent 10 percent of my employes, and I want the other 90 percent represented or I have the right to assume they are not discontented." You could take that position, could you not? Mr. Gary: In conversation, do you mean? Senator Walsh: Is it not a question of fact for you to determine how many the representatives of organized labor reore- sent? Mr. Gary: Yes, quite right. Senator Walsh: Not to assume they are a minority simply because you get letters from their representatives, and to take the position that they are only a minority. Is that not a fact which you could have determind alter conferring with them? Men do not make public their membership in unions. Mr. Gary: You will remember I said in my letter, they had said to me, "We represent your men," and I said that 'T do not think you represent them." Was that not equivalent to disputing the fact? ^ ^ Senator Walsh: But the union men in the shop, where, they know their employer will not recognize their unions, do you think If" •" 36 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA THE OPEN SHOP ^7 those men will make public their membership? Do you think your superintendents and foremen would know every man in your plant that was a member of a union when they knew that you were not in sympathy with unions? Mr. Gary: I do not think that, but I do think that with ordinary years and intelligence, if employes came to him in large numbers so he knew they were a majority, saying they did not belong to unions and they did not care to have a small minority control a shop. I think he would get it that way. Senator Jones: But your position is the same even if 90 per cent of your men were unionized you would refuse to meet and to confer with their representatives, as I understand you? Is that true? Mr. Gary: I have not said so; I do not say that. Senator Jones: Have you not said you refused to recog- n ze the officers of unions, that you would not even talk with Mr. tiompcrs? Have you not said that here? Mr. G^ry: The trouble is you do not Senator Jones (interrupting): The reason you are not con- torrinjj with them is because you think they represent only a mi- nority, or is it because you are hostile to the representatives of or.'.ian zed labor conferring with you? It is one or tliv- .-Jivr. Mr. Gary: Senator. I refuse to change my thought or my exprcsson, in substance, and that is that we refuse to do any- thin- thru will result in the closed shop as against the open shop, and that is where 1 stand. * * * * * * I put ourselves squarely upon one issue, and that is the open or closed shop. Now, as to wliat will bring about a closed shop, as opposed to the open shop, we must decide from tin.c to t-!v:e. depending upon the facts as they are presented. * * i^ Senator Jones: * * If there should now be a disclaimer of any intention to put :r force in your plants v.'liat yon liave Cfl'd t]ie closed shop, which other people would call the unionized - • ' y-'U 1 willing to consider any matters on that basis, iuitl luik with people about any of the subjects wliic'i have haiu su::!:eslcd for discussion — the tv/elvc points, for instance? Mr. Gary: Senator, a statement of that disclaimer, would not satisfy mc ; it would l)e contrary to anything: that has ever I>e\n doiK-: and I express the opinion that if they made sudi a disclaimer in ^unA faith it would not be long before they would be eliminated from the lalior union organizations, and other men with different views, substituted to carry on the work of unions. 1 l-.ase my opinion on past experience in this country and other countries. The mere statement that such was their intention would ' not satisfy me. Indeed, as I have told you, I have been informd that it was their intention, in order to get control, and then do what was necessary later. That comes from a pretty important member of their organization, and I know he has made the statement. At the annual meeting of the stockholders of t'u L r. t, d Steel Corporation, April ISth. 1921. an extended sta:eme;K was made by Mr. Gary, as the executive head of the corporation, wlreb h-js been publisht under the tit:e, "Principles and Pe^licies of tiip Unite I States Steel Corporation." This discussion covers a \v:d- range of questions. Portions which touch more or less dir.ct'v upon the matter of the open shop po'icy of the Corporation are quoted below : Durmg the twenty years of our existence there has not been material hostility shown or serious complaint made to the manage- ment by our workmen themselves, either individually or in com- mittees or groups formed liy them (as permitted l)y our practise), wh ch has not been cheerfully considerd by the management and promptly disposed of to the mutual satisfaction of ])oth parties. Obviously it is for the pecuniary interests of both employer and employe to avoid controversy and to m.aintain peaceful and satisfactory relations. No outsider cou'd or would l)e as solicitous for the welfare of the employe as the cmplover, nor for the em- p oyer as the employe. Success for l)ot]i depends upon friendly relations; failure for both results from hostility. Both realize this and, in the present age, act accordingly, unless unduly influenced by outsiders who, from personal and unworthy motives or from a desire to attract pulilic attention or from misgu'ded zeal or lack of experience and information, are misled into a position which is harmful and unjustified. As a rcsu't of these conditions, misrepresentations are made; some with good intentions, but more frequently from itr.proper niotives. _ The management of the Steel Corporation has steadfastly striven to cultivate a feeling of amity with the v>'orkmen and has been very successful. * * * Of course, under some circumstances, as the rcsu t of coercion, threats, insults or wild promises, memliers of the unions, not prcv!ons1y consulted, n:ay and c!o temporarily i,,in a movement prec p;tated l^y the leaders and thus for a tin:".- nonvinalA- inrrease their niemlierslv'p. If a vvorkn:an desires to join a lalior union he is. of course, at l:])erty to do .'d. ;md in that case be should not be d-^criminated aea nst 1)y an "open shop" so long as he respects the rights of his employer and his c(vemployes and in every way conforms to the .aws of the land. The "open shop," as heretofore publicly defined IS what we believe in and stand for. Rut still, our opinion is that the existence and conduct of labor unions, in this country at least, are inimical to the bc«t mterests of the employes, the employers and the general pu1)lic. * * * The workman, if he belongs to a labor union, becomes the industrial slave of the union. He has no power of initiative or opportunity to apply his natural mental and physical capacity. If our own shops should l)ecome thorough'v unionized and all others likewise should recognize the unions, and the steel industry should become entirely organized, as the leaders have openlv attempted .-» J8 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA THE OPEN SHOP 39 I then the management would be m the hands of the unions Some ot you have, no doubt, personally seen or read of the results of complete organization by the unions in certain lines ihe natural and certain effects of labor unionism are exprest ni^tt'"turr'^'\^^^^^ ^"d be it rememberd that m the end the general public, which is more interested in the sehmg price of all products, must pay for extortionate, unnecessary n!!lT'''''T'r%r^'^ ^^' P^-d"^tion. It is primkr"l>" funda' iXrllnion" ^^^^ '"terested in the existence and conduct of ♦ ♦ ♦ The end sought by labor union leaders, that, at least to nhich their efforts tend, means disaster and destruction. * * * I would not intentionally do an injustice to any union labor z'tion n7th "•^'l'^'; ""'7- ,^"' ^ ^'^"^^>' ^'^'^'^'^ complete unbn- zation ot the industry of this country, as attempted, would be the beginning of mdustrial decay. • * ♦ ♦ It seems to me that the natural, if not the necessary, result uf the contemplated progress of labor unions, if successful would I)e to secure the control of shops, then of the general ma^^e ment of bus:ness, then of capital, and finally of government ^ llio It IS going atield from our immediate question, it may be proper to point out that in this connection Mr. Gary proposes as a "possible solution" of the industrial problem a possible "antidote to the labor union problem," in "laws-clear, well defined, practi- cable and easy of comprehension— covering these matters." "I do not believe in socialism; in Governmental management or opera- tion; but I do advocate publicity, regulation and reasonable con- trol thru Government agencies." In the matter of Collective Bargaining Mr. Gary's statement shows caution, observing that other corporations are experimenting in this field, and that the Steel Corporation is watching these with interest, ready to profit by either their success or their failure. We do not endorse experimentation, especially concerning workmen unless it seems practical and reasonable. I venture the mdividual opinion that any plan which seeks to deprive the inves- tor of tne control ot his property and business is inimical to the Umdamental ideas of our country and to the public welfare Any step in this direction is to be deplored. Any nation which adopts it will fail to maintain a leading position in industrial effi- ciency and progress. A man, or group of men, contending for a ditferent attitude, is opposing self-protection and interest. It IS a fair and wise conclusion that anyone claiming the right to a vo-ce in the management of the property of a corporation should do so thru a stockholding interest, and thus share responsi- bility and iiabdity and profits with all other stockholders X' Our employes in groups, or as individuals, at all times, iiaxe access to the office of the foreman or to any other superior officer even to the highest. CAN LABOR UNIONS SURVIVE IN THE OPEN SHOP? This is a question much discust in quotations scattered thru our pamphlet. Others besides partisan and selfishly interested labor leaders will consider the question vital to our general dis- cussion. Many employers and independent publicists magnify the service which the trade union has renderd to American industry, scarcely less than do the union leaders themselves. The effect of the open shop upon the unions is therefore of great significance. As a further contribution to this discussion we reprint an editorial from "America at Work," for January 19th, 1921. It is entitld "For Labor Unions: A Receipt for Immortality." The editor manifestly believes that the road leads thru the open shop. The union labor leader might be inclined to agree with him that immortality would thus be insured, in so far as death is the nec- essary condition precedent to that beatific state. The article has good material for our debators. If the labor union wishes to get a firm grip on the principle of immortality in organization life, it must stop thinking so much about organization and think very much more about the essentials of the cause of the working man. At the outset, it ought to turn its back now and forever on the narrow view which makes everything turn on the possession or non-possession of a union card. It ought to declare that its interest is in but three thing^ Good working conditions, good wages; And the highest possible standard of craftsmanship ; and place its approval on these things wherever found. It should take the ground tliat it has no quarrel and no cause of difference with any industrial organization, organized or un- organized, union or non-union, where wages, conditions and out- put meet certain tests. It ought to make its campaigns wholly on the basis of ihe service it is capable of rendering. This would necessarily imply the working out of definite stand- ards, whicli, taken together, would constitute the labor union stpndard of industrial health, fairness and well-being. The labor unions at present have no definite standards. We do not mean to say that they have no definite reqiric- ments; they have. But a requirement and a standard are two very different things. A \\ •m^ Ill 4a THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA A requirement is a thing demanded ; a standard is an unchang- ing unit to measure other things by. The difficuhy, for example, in attempting to satisfy an un- reasonable child is that the child is so definite as to requirements, and so indefinite as to standards. A real labor union standard would have to be founded on a real philosophy— a complete and well-thought-out working theory of the relation of the workman to industry. No mere disposition to increase wages from time to time as much as may be possible can possibly fill the place of such a theory. If organized lal)or is to take a permanent and recognized place among the institutions of the time, it cannot do this by any mere display of power; whatever the late War did or did not prove, it proved that — 'The mere display of power is the last thing in the world that msures the immortality of party, caste, or government. Modern mtn do not back down before power as such at all ; they only yield respect to the foundations of power; and power in a democracy can have no permanent foundation except in service. America at work does not for a moment deny that labor unions are being opposed today by prejudiced men, by narrow men. by men of feudal instincts, and of chilM steel selfishness. But this is not the opposition that counts. It is not the opposition that need be reckond with. Labor unions are a'so being opposed today, not in blind pre- judice and hot blood, but in response to the verdict of the sober second thought, by a large group of enlightend Americans who recognize the fact that All "closed shop" organizations are despotisms. It makes no difference what kind of organization is in question. It may be a cluirch to whose leaders there is no grace of God and no power of God save where a particular ecclesiastical name is blown in the l:ottle. It ;r::i\ I)e a university which recognizes no culture without an academic degree. It may he a school of medicine which fails to understand that the law of health is the law of prevention and not of cure. It may be a political party or administration to which all wis- dom is concentrated in one party and no patriotic service is worth anything unless tagd with a particular party label. % f ^ » i . 1. THE OPEN SHOP 41 Or — to illustrate from the field we are discussing -- it may be simply a laljor union, which cares not a copper how good a workman a man is, what wages he gets, what shop conditions he works under, or v;hat his citizenship and his labor are worth lo his fellowmcn and asks only whether he has a union card. .\\\ such organizations are doomed. To put the emphasis on organization, and not tlie en. I vi organization, is to cherish the container and forget the content-;. Either the labor union of the present day l.'is a derr.ito theory as to the desires and demands of workingm.n at t"ne hands of society or it has not. If it has not, it is the blind leading the blind, 'ind ihc greater its power the more certain it is to end in the d;tcn 1-esidc llic road. But above all things else the labor union must regard ilie un'on first and last as only a means to an end. It must be willing at any time to modify its l -)nv., chaiu^c its machinery, abolish old plans and su1}stitute new oacs. i," circum- stances indicate that the happiness and prosper. ty of voikcr-, iliru more efficient service by high-class craftsmansir,) point ihat v.ay. In suggesting this, we are not setting any inp i.-sihl:' stundard. We are not supposing for a minute that editing union labor charters and constitutions could edit selfishness and shor:s'^>hie(!ne:>s out of human nature. We are only asking that union labor go as far as ni. d-.m churches and schools, modern physicians and insuiance companies have gone in putting the emphasis on the end and not tlie means, on the aims of the organization and not on mcnihcrsnip in the organization itself. The closed shop idea runs square against all the essentials of modern democracy — for the way of democracy is to test everything by service, to go back of the label and try the contents. When the American Federation of Labor becomes enlightend enough to declare that it is interested to push itself only in tho?e parts of the labor field that need its help in order to atuiin the ends of good wages, good conditions and high craftsmanship -- when it proclaims this creed in public and lives by it m pri\ai'.. then and not till then will its power be of the kind that endure i;. "He that saveth h's life shall lose it" — is as true of organizations as it is of men. If a m.an or an organization wants to make itself d»'sirt d and cherisht for all time, the way to do it is to forget itse^:" in th? widest possible service of its cause. l\ I * t i ■•-' THE UMViRSITY OF OKLAHOMA OPEN SHOP AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROPAGANDA In numerous instances tl.ruout the country the Clia;,,;,. r. o, I o,„merce has thrown the whole weight of its influence a^nins. ...e tin-.on or closed shop and for the open shop. Xaturally Ihi. has occurd on,y ,„ the cases of that type of Chamher of Con,,,.crc.' whxh does not admit !abor representatives on equal footin„, with n^n l'?',. '' '•■'" "' °^«="'^'"':°" i^ l^ecomins more co,n- mon, l,„t t.,ere are many of the older type thruout the -.untry No- ull employers have joind in the campaign for the open .!,„ ■ Iron'. , V , """'" '"'' Commercial clubs who have , onounced for the open shop have personally given their approval, an, more than all the members of the churches have approved of .he^act,v,ty of church agencies in resisting the open 'shop ca,:' •As an illustration of the activity of many Chambers of Com- I'-a;. ■ i' si rrb" rT. '"'^^ "" '^^ °' => '-^^ "--p^-p- ^ "• 1 .aj issued by the Industrial Re'a.ions Committee of the Phila- de ,h,a Chamber of Commerce, which appeard in the Even „, 'r ittr" ^:' t "'"• ,"-"• '" •'°''' '■'-'^- '"'"« -hich ,h H -OPEN- "shop ""'t" '7f"' "="■" "'''^ ^^^""'^ ^^^ .•.. t ".Pre" d!s?'n"n^hes h'Trom 'th^' 'T '="', "T"^ «■''" "-"'^ all n.n who do XOT mI^JJo aThJ^^uul^i;'' "•'"* '^ ^'-^^ '" ■ IH- Or.cn Shop" :s by no means new. American •■ndu^iri^. ;:;rl,-^s^™tir^it.T^Se^^-£li no 'r-':n.ca.io„ other th.^n m.:!!^rM^t ^^Z.T'^^ l^lt ■.' lo«d by the Hn:on to work there unless thry are mem —■ un:on. n the_ "(ipen Shop" the employer^deermir" < .n e.her theii!:i:'^,!7„St';!;^;i;:':;.f "^ -j;^ ^^,:'&x ir'lhl u'el^t^orVhe''";:",' -i;.T'"'^^ ;. IheXloyc"." wt Iiearf in tl p ••ril f'le .nc u.s ry the employes and the city at ' - '" "^^ y^Viv. Mi();j ever)- rnrui 'i « n wt '1 .- t, ' r I'* . i . THE OPEN SHOP 43 IS paid according to his ability; in the "Closed Shop" employes tn- gaged m the same work are paid the same daily wage. In the "Open Shop" a man may increase lii.s income bv hi^ mdustry and initiative; in the "Clost t i\ ¥, 1 --'^ •I: 44 THE UNVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA concJ.tions under which he must work. Under such an economic condition there is no bargaining, either collective or otherwise. The existence of a union able to control its members and to mainta.n a morale und^r discouraging circumstances puts the work- man in a postion to force the employer to discuss the price of l.ihor and to make a better offer than he would under other con- ditions. But even with the trade union in existence, he does not have to bargain with it. By delay and expense he can procure in- 'lepcndcnt workmen. Even if he cannot man his entire factory with independent workmen he can perhaps emp:ov enough men to keep It go.ng. liic presence of independent workmen provides a com- petitive element in the labor market whicli makes the agreement imally reacht l^etvveen an employer and a laljor union in its nature a rt-al hargain. But if there be no independent workmen available If the union is the only source of lal)or suppply, the employer is just as unable to bargain as the workman was when there was no union. In a closed shop surrounded by closed shop conditions there IS no bargaining, co lective or otherwise. You pay the price that labor Gcmands, or you go out of business. The fewer employers m a trade a particular communitv. the better it is for the la])or organization. If it can force all of the business of its trade into the hands of one or a small group of employers and make a con- tract with tliat employer or group, then all of its mcml)ers, work- mg for the same employer or group, will work under the same conditions. .\o one will have a grievance, except the man who thinks he is a l.ttle better tlian the rest and would like to be free to work at Ins own rate and on his own terms. He is a nuisance to the labor organization, but as final remedy he can always be tried tor some violation of rules, expcld and blacklisted from the trade. TRYANNY AND THE CLOSED SHOP The wide-open shop leads to tyranny of employers, contuu! labor leaders and largo numbers of publicists, who cite the records of industrial history in proof. The tight-dosed shop can be and i^ no kss tyrannical, contend those who also cite incidents in recent industrial history. Thus It often transpires that those who are contending against a closed shop are in substantial agreement with those who arc no less vehemently contending against an open shop. B./Ji are opposed to tyranny. One party has seen the evil practist in the open shop and the other has seen it in the closed shop. A great amount of argument has been employd to show that the so-cald op.n shop is a shop closed against aH union workmen. Another great amount of argument has been devoted to revealing the alleged iniqu'ties of the closed shop, by advocating an open ylh'lK without regard to checks upon the tyranny of unfettered rir.ploy.rs. Murray T. Quig- writing in a letter publisht in the ■i ilkr ji ^^M THE OPEN SHOP 45 WEEKLY REVIEW for January 26th, 1921, a portion of which is quoted elsewhere under another topic, contends vehemently against the closed shop, but proposes an alternative which is not the open shop of the type which leaves the workman at the mercy of an irresponsible employer. He desires to perpetuate the element of bargaining, as between employer and employe, l)ut neither must be permitted to gain such power as to drive the bargain mercilessly. In view of the moral issues involvd in the closed shop, it i.*^ diff.cult to understand how any one can be of an open mind about it. Assuming the ex'stence of a job, there is only one reason for cniploying a man, and that is that he is the ])est man available to fill the job. Any other reason for employing him is a false one. Since this is ol)vious, why should any one suggest tliat a man l)e employd because of his membership or non-mem])ership in a union p * * * The science of life is the science of values. It is as true in tlie industrial world as in everything else. We wisli a medium tlirough which the employer of lal)or and a representative of labor can ireet and determine the value of the services wliich the work- man is rendering. Today we have neither standards nor machiiii ry for determining standards Ijy v/hich to gauge the va-uc of services. AVi that we determine is the price which represents llic deadlock of force between eir^ployers and employes. If an industry cannot afford to pay its workmen wages which are .mfi icitnt to enable them to live decently and properly, to educate their children it should not employ ihtm, and within the near future the state will probably forbid such unsound eir.p'Iovment. The issue of the closed shop is upon us. Red-l)'oo(led men must make up their minds. It is tlie issue of tyranny against liberty. The right of workmen to concerted acti(;n in driving a wage bar- gain is not involvd; The right has been exercised time and time again in open shops and exercised effectively. Society is interested and it will not be satisfied until the price of wages represents a value and not the deadlock of force. THE UNIVERSAL CLOSED SHOP. If not the open shop,- then the closed shop. Alany la'jor leaders insist that the one or the other must l)e chosen. Many employers entirely agree with them. The two groups differ as' far as'tlie poles v.hen it comes to deciding which it shall l)e. But the two groups are agreed that it should and must l)e one or the other. A large number of other persons see the possibility of and l)clieve in a kind half-open, haif-closed shop. Deliaters upholding the negative of our tiuestion may stand with the union labor leaders or with these "other persons." An 46 THE UNVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA ^^ editorial in the WEEKLY REVIEW, January 26th, 1921. prtsses the argument against the advocates of the closed shop. Union labor leaders constantly have as their objective the uni- versal closed shop. They regard non-membership in a union in any trade in which there is a union, as treason to the cause of labor. The attitude is quite intelligible. But there is no reason why intelligent persons, looking at the matter from the standpoint of the genera! public, should assent to the notion that the labor unions must be ether everything or nothing. A union may be powerful without being omn potent. If it succeeds in bringing into its organization a preponderating, or even a very large, body of the workers in the trade, it can exercise powerful pressure upon emp'.oyers in ])ehalf of any reasonable — and, if circumstances favor it, even of very unreasonable — demands. Yet many persons see no distinction between opposition to the closed shop principle and opposition to the whole system of labor organization. They do not stop to think either of the large possibilities of united action which union labor can avail itself of without proscription of non-union labor, or of the inK)lerable situation which would arise if such proscription were complete. In that situation we should a'l be at the absolute mercy of the labor unions; they could at any moment enforce any demand they might make by the threat of paralysis of the whole activities of the community. It is the privilege of the members of a union to refuse to work alongside of anybody who is not a mem- ber of a union ; and if the union is sufficiently strong, it may, bv making use of this privilege, be able to compel any given employer to accept the closed shop principle. But likewise it is the privilege of any employer to refuse to accept that principle. Those employers who are doing so, and who, in doing so, are not resorting to measures that are in themselves oppressive or unlawful, are fight- ing a good fight for all — a fight against the reduction of the country to a condition of subjection to arbitrary class rule. r 1^' • - 'r4 MAINLY FOR THE NEGATIVE DECEPTION IN THE "OPEN" SHOP Much of the discussion claiming to set forth the open shop as a "great and glorious principle" of Americanism, is swept aside noi only by union labor leaders, but by publicists not members of or otherwise identified with the labor unions. They maintain that this principle is not involvd, but that the campaign for the open shop is designd to "pull the wool over the eyes" of the public, while employers re-assume the arbitrary control over industry of which recent legislation, and the vigorous measures adopted by the union movement, have tended to deprive them. This view is set forth with characteristic vigor by Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, in the article printed below. This is supplied by Mr. Gompers' office in Washington in mimeographed form, and has doubtless been re- printed at various times and places. The term "Open" Shop was coined to deceive. Union men are not permitted to work in the so-called "open" shops if the em- ployers know the applicant is a member of a labor organization. The employers want the so-called "open" shop because their em- l)loycs must accept any wages, hours of employment or working conditions fixt arbitrarily by the employers. This is autocracy in industry. llnemies of Labor, those employers who believe in autocracy in industry, term the non-union shop the "open" shop. They clothe themselves in a cloak of righteousness and hypocritically declare that the "open" shop is an "American shop where men are free to work out their own destiny." They denoimce labor organizations and charge them with destroying all ambition in the workers. If the "open" shop is such a wonderfid and "patriotic" insti- tution why is it that in all history there is not a single case where the employes in a union shop went on strike to compel the estab- lishment of an "open" shop? But there are many thousands of cases of employes ceasing work to compel an employer to grant I he union shop. You never hear workmen extolling the virtues of the "opcn"^ shop, where wages are fixt arl)itrarily by the em- ployers. Working conditions are also determind by the employers TIic employes have nothing to say as to their wages, hours of em- ploNiKcnt or working conditions. Where the employes are unorganized the employer is at an advantage. Fear of discharge compels the employes to accept con- ditions to which tluy secretly and sullenly o1)ject. Those wlio won (1 esta])l:sh the "opui" or non-union shops are un-American 1 ^\> If^ 48 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA Ixcause tluy take from their employes the right to have something to say about what they shall receive in payment for their work* while at the same time the employers maintain the right to organize and act collectively in all matters pertaining to their own business affairs. I know of no case where both union and non-un'on men work under union regulations. This is an anomaly. There are cases where un:on men work in non-union shops, but it is what :s termed "under cover;" that is, their presence is not known to the employer. The *\;pcn" shop cannot destroy the labor unions but the employers who are unfair believe that it is the greatest weapon they can use to accomplish that end. Trade unionism is a symbo' of those th-.ngs wh:ch are best in life. It is a real living thing wh.ch the toilers love and cherish. And the soul of the movement IS the hearts and lives of those who have built themselves into it by sacrifice and toil. Those who would destroy the trade union movement w:sh to take from the workers the right to carry out the lollowing declaration made in 1910 by the A. F. of L. convention of that year: "Organized labor contends for the improvement of the standard of life, to uproot ignorance and foster education, to mst 11 character and manhood and an independent spirit among our people, to bring about a recognition of the interdependence of the modern life of man and his fel'.owman. It aims to establish a normal workday, take the children from the factory and workshop and place them in the school, the home and the playground. In a word the unions of labor, recognizing the duty of toil, strive to educate their members, to make ''their homes more cheerful in every way, to contribute an earnest effort toward making life the better worth liviuL^ to avail the-.r members of their rights as citizens and to bear the duties and re«^pons:b lities and perform the obligations they owe to our country and our fellowmen. Labor contends that in every effort to achieve its praiseworthy ends all honorable and law- ful means arc not only commenda])le but should receive the sympathetic support of every right-thinking progressive man." Certain employers want the trade unions destroyd, but they are few in proportion to the number of employers in America. If trade unions could be destroyd there would be no organization to contend for the principles declared above, for the trade union movement is the only movement that has for its true purpose the economic advancement of humanity. IF NOT THE OPEN SHOP—WHAT? The affirmative debator, after setting forth his case, may he inclined to turn upon the debator for the negative, and ask, "Since you do not believe in the open shop, what do you believe in :>" The negative may not be disposed to reply 'The closed shop." Has the debater for the affirmative the right to force him to say that? Do the terms of the debate force him to make any BP <> V) %» ^ ■A THE OPEN SHOP 49 reply? Will it be considerd sufficient to win his case if he demon- strates that the open shop is not the solution of our serious indus- trial problems? However those questions are answered, the debater.-, on both s:des may well find out what program or programs are being advo- cated instead of the open shop. Therefore another extended article is printed here from Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor. This is issued in pamphlet form by the Washington office of the Federation, under the title. "The Union Shop and Its Antithesis." The synonymiS for "union" shop and "non-union" shop respec- tively are "democracy" and "autocracy." In the union shop the workers are free men. They have the right of organizing in trade unions and to bargain collectively with their employers through representatives of their own choosing. Employes in the non-union shop are like cogs in a machine. They have nothing to say as to the conditions under which they will work, but must accept any wages, hours and working conditions that may be fixt arbitrarily by the employer. A non-union man who accepts employment in a union shop has the privilege of joining the union which has a voice in deter- mining with employers the wages, hours and conditions of work. He is given time in which to make application, if he so desires. No union man, if known, is permitted by the employers to work in a non-union shop. Men who believe that the Chinese Exclusion law should be repeald, who believe the Literacy Test should be repcald, who believe that hordes of illiterate immigrants from southeastern Europe shouM be permitted to enter the United States as freely as citizens of this country pass from state to state, are the men who object to the union shop. They believe in ' autocracy in industry. They hope to use these hordes to lower the standard of living of the workers of the United States. Furthermore, they will fight to the last ditch to prevent the taking away from them of the arbitrary power of dictating wages, hours ami cr.n- ditions of employment to the workers in their employ. Most relentless propaganda has been used to discredit the union shop and to hold up to the pu])lic the great benefits of the non-union shop. No more malicious misrepresentation of a desir- . able condition in industry ever was launcht. It began in the early 19C0's when a number of associations were formd'^to destroy the trade union movement. Lawyers were employd to travel about ^\N ..^fti.. ■>- I t i "^ ■rf^=^ 50 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA .Ik- coun.ry de:ivering addresses, all of whiel, were confined t„ .lenunc,at:on of labor organizations. The mos, venon.ous clinr..e. were made against them. ° Judges were influenced hy this propaganda to decide that tamd most b.tter statements against the workers who had l.a' them nioM >.c.ou.ly riie latter b.bevd if the children of the workers were perm:tted to go to school that when they grew o'der they wo, demand better conditions of employirtent than their father, non i::: r;. """" "'^'' '^^-^ """ =■"<' ^- "-^- "--"i"^' ■>- It is the principal method used to repress the worker, ,„ browbeat thein and keep them in perpetual fear. To make An,er;cans ,s none of their concern. They do not care wbetlur he;r eni.Ooyes are loyal citizens or not as long as they can .he:r goods manulaCnred at less cost than a fair-minded emplover l'-CO's"!ea!.';"d PT^"'•'^ "f «''-J "'^- """try in ,be earh IXOs r.aa.d. The people learnd that the men who were e,n'- Ployd in union shops were possest of better characters and hi-b.. ■Hiane workers than those employ.l i„ ,he non-union shops V,e- - '..- It made them better citizens ■!Kn''"i?arc'o'lx;i '"'''''''}''^"' "-^' ''>' "-'-V -"P'oyers tau.l,, ■ ea e res^dt h '^"'•"'"";"^ ^^•''" "^«-"-^ THE OPEN SHOP 51 became better known. Employer after employer chan^^cd his at- titude and voluntarily agreed to the union shop. There are many thousands of employers in the United States who are conducting the union shop and would not change under any circumstances. But after tlic armistice was signd the profiteers in order to hide their nefarious practices launcht a bitter crusade aga:nst the union shop. It has reacht high tide and will soon recede, as the public, and especially the non-union workers, are begir.nin- u> realize that the only hope for relief is in organization. This ha> been exemplified in the past year by more than a mil'i.jn men joining the organized labor movement, until now. July. V'2X tlure are 5,5GO,OCO organized workers in America. The repeated crusades against the union shop have been boom- erangs. They have called the attention of the non-union workers to their economic plight. When the American Federation of Labor was organized the big cities of the country were fild with sweat-shops. ^ The tene- ment house system in New York was so abominable that the legislature, through the insistence of the American Federation of Labor enacted a law for its abolition. It was most highly in- jurious to the health of the workers on sanitary, economic, moral and social grounds. Whole families lived in one room where cigars and clothing were made by women and children. It was the trade union movement that gradually drove the sweat-shops from the tenement houses and compeld'thc esta];lish- ment of factories in wel!-ventilated buildings. The sweat-shop was the non-union shop. The sweat-shops were not abolisht, however, until the workers were organized and demanded sanitary working conditions. This required the establishment of factories. The factories were union shops. While the bread-winners of families who livd in the tene- ment houses were at work in the factories, their dependents gaind health in the improvd living surroundings because of the law for- bidding home work. Those now living who in the early eighties were cmployd m the large plants of the country realize the great improvements made in the conditions of employment. It was not until the union shop was demanded and largely secured that these economic benefits were gaind. It is because Labor is continually seeking improvements in working conditions and the standard of living that the objections are arousd of those who desire to keep the workers servile. Upon I 0^ f 52 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA what other grounds would employers oppose the organi/.ation of the workers? What other reason could be given? They are the HK'n who clothe themselves in the cloak of piety and raise th^iv ryei> upward in horror when they hear anyone speak of the union shop. They stand in the way of progress as others have done since the beginning of time. They are the reactionaries who believe in involuntary servitude. They are the men who seek legislation to tie men to their jobs. The union shop is an ob- stacle to their dreams of autocracy in industry. Therefore they seek to make the union shop detestable in the eyes of the people while tlie non-union shop is lauded as the greatest har1)or for "free" men that could possibly be conceivd. But cmp'.cyes in a non-union shop soon find out that they are not free men. When they enter such a p'.ant they leave all hope of economic improvement behind. Wliat is a union shop? .-V union shop is a shop where the employes are members of trade unions or are willing to join. The workers through represen- tatives selected by themselves meet the employers in the industry (11 a common ground. They hold meetings in their unions in which all grievances they may have are thoroughly discust. These include wages, hours of emiployment and rules covering their heaitli. safety and comfort. The union shop represents true democracy in industry. There are no class distinctions or autocratic rulings to disturb the best relations betv.een the workers and their employers. The right .)f or-ranizing into trade unions is conceded. Employers and employes meet as m.an to man. Each respects the other. Tlie emp'oye is a willing worker and the employer keeps the part of the l)argain he has made with the workers through their cliosen representatives. What is a non-union shop? A non-union shop is where the workers who are unorganized are empliiyd as individuals. Their wages and liours of work are ers of unions. The so-called open shop influences wages and the standard of living downward, and it is based upon the sycophancy of the most docile and servile and -the most immediate needs of those in distress of the poorest situated among the workmen. This so-called "open shop" is the disintegrating factor iliat leads to the non-union shop ; in other words, the shop which is closed to the union man, no matter from whence he hails or wh.at iiis skill and competency. What is the "closed shop?" The term V.osed shop" was originated about 1903. li was coind by the enemies of trade unions for a purpose. That pur- pose was and continues to be to divert attention from the de- fensive action of union men. The union creates certain desirable conditions. The ncni- unicnist tries to destroy them. By not competing with one another for the employment, the unionist make their advantage. By competing, the non-unionists would leave the dictation of terms wholly to employers. And then the employers, when the union has gaind something through its advantage, come forward with a demand for the "open shop" and make an appeal to the public in the name of liberty. The term "closed shop" is a false designation of the union shop. Those who are hostile to labor cunningly employ the term "closed shop" for a union shop because of the general antipathy which is ordinari'y felt toward anything being closed, and with the specious pka that the so-called "open shop" must necessarily afford the opportunity for freedom. As a matter of fact, the union shop is open to all workmen who perform their duty, and they participate in the benefits and advantages of the improve! conditions whxh a union shop affords. The union shop also implies duties and responsibilities. This is incident to and tlu corollary of all human institutions. The dishonest idea given in the term "closed shop" is that no one can secure employment there except members of trade unions. «i 1 • \. ' 1 i( '. i THE OPEN SHOP 55 When the unions make an agreement with the employers as to wages, hours and working conditions, it is natural to believe that the contract is between members of unions only and the employers. But men can be employd who are not members of a union. A certain period is given them to prove their competency and then it the result is favorable their applications as members 01 the imions are accepted. Any wage worker can join a trade union. All are open, wide open to all wage-workers qualified at the occupation organized. They pay an entrance fee barely sufficient to equalize the payments of unions' benevolent benefits and current cost of administration. No union ever ask* ;, non unionist to pay for the slightest percentage of the damage he has done as a disruptionist. It is literally and positively true, without evasion or equivocation, that trade unions, and consequentlv umon shops, are open for all wage-workers whom any employe'r won d possibly contemplate as employes who would be kept regu- larly and permanently in his employ. What the trade unionists call for is the union siiop Those uho speak of it as a "closed shop" are enemies of Labor who bv distorting the facts seek to discredit the trade union movement" The question is often askt, "why should a non-union man who secured employment in a union plant agree to joint the union a ter he has proved his competency. Why should lie not be at liberty to work as a non-union man?" Wages in union shops are higher llian in nr,n-union shops The hours of work are less and the working conditions are more des:rable. These are gaind thru the workers dealing with the employer collectively. Each member contributes a small Mim to carry on the work of the union. Why should a non-unionir 58 THE UNVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA As the employes were employd as individuals and kept apart hy racial, creed, national prejudices and other means, they could not unite to submit their greivances until they became meml»crs of trade unions. They could not understand each other, nor could they succeed in eliminating the causes that had formcr'y kept them in isolated and hostile groups. Collective bargaining in industry docs not imply that wage earners sha'l assume control of industry, or responsibility for financial management. It proposes that the employes shall have the right to organize and to deal with the employer thru selected representatives as to wages and working conditions. Am.ong the matters that properly come within the scope of col'ective bargaining are wages, hours of labor, conditions and relations of employment, the sanitary conditions of the plant, safety and comfort regulation and such other factors as would add to the health, safety and comfort of the employes, resulting in the mutual advantage of both employers and employes. But there is no belief held in the trades unions that its members shall control the plant or usurp the rights of the owners. Collective bargaining takes into consideration not on'y mutually advantageous conditions and standards of life and work, but also the human equation, a desideratum too long neglected. APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES 2. What is coilective bargaining? A. :-'.n:ply a bus.ness proposition l.y which the nrgani/erl em- ployes m a trade or industry deal collectively with their emplover or cr-'pliivf rs. Q. How is this accomplished? A. The employes in their union appoint a committee to draw up new; wage scales and working conditions. These arc reported to the union for consideration. Then in regular meeting each ques- tion is taken up and discust from every angle. Finally the union agrees u?>'>n a wat;>e sca'e and working conditions to suljinit to f'-'-. ^''' - ' -; r.jrrm'ttce for this purpose is selected, as the entire nuni]>er of employes can not meet in conference witli the employer. This committee meets the em.ployer or his representa- tive anel discusses the desires of the employes collectively thru the;r un:on. Q. Does this committee have full power to act? A. No. It must report b.ick to the un:on the result of its con- ference with the employer. If the report is satisfactory the union approves the settlement and an agreement for a stated period is s:.i;iu)cn Shop Referendum No. 31, Sectiem 9, adopted ]:y an almost iinani-' m.ous vote by Chambers of Commerce in the country, declares it- se^- opposed to dealing collectively with emplove.s' \vhr, are in any \vay "controld by or in such dealing in any degree r.preMUt any outside group or interest in the questions at issue." TIrls policy would mean the destruction of every local union in the United States affiliated with a national union. Chambers of Commerce in all parts of the United States have engaged in union- smashing campaigns since this referendum was adopted. Ell)ert H. Gary, chairman of the Board of Directors of the United States Steel Corporation, declared himself in favor of the Open Shop policy. He said: "There is at present, in the opmion of the large majority of both employers and emplove. no % I I 62 \'i r THE UNVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA ^ necessity for labor unions." The Interchurch World Movement states that in practice this policy meant the discharge of any ac- tive union men. Eugene Grace, President of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation whose salary was estimated in the New York Times at $1,000,000 a year, admitted on the witness stand before the Lockwood Com- mission in New York that the Open Shop policy of his corpora- lion means not only the refusal to deal with unions in the steel plants but the boycotting of contractors who deal with union labor. He declared that he **wouId not deal with the unions, even tho iliey embraced 95 percent of his employes." A. M. Glossbrenner of the Indiana Manufacturers' Associa- tion in explaining why he favored an open shop resolution said. "We will not employ an individual in any part of the plant that does not sign an individual contract in which it is cxprest that he IS not and will not become a member of a labor organization while in our employ." What actions have Open Shop corporations taken against unions ? in every American industry in which the Open Shop Move- ment has attaind any success the result has been the smashing of unions, the discharge of union leaders and the reduction of wages. Examples may be found in the steel industry, the textile industry, the mining industry and the men's clothing industry. What has the Open Shop Movement done in the steel in- dustry? The Open Shop Movement in the steel industry led by Judge Gary, of the United States Steel Corporation, has resulted in the establishment of the 12-hour day and the seven day week, with an average work week for all steel workers of nearly 69 hours. It has reduced the wages so low that the Interchurch World Move- ment reported 72 percent of all iron and steel workers as earning less than a "minimum of comfort" wage. It caused a strike of 3()5,000 steel workers in which union organizers were kild, hundreds of strikers were imprisond on false charges, union meetings were broken up, union members discharged and an elaborate 'spy sys- tem was built up to protect "scab" workers in their "sacred right" to sign a contract for the twelve hour day and a starvation wage. The leaders of the' Open Shop Movement in the steel industry have deliberately smasht the unions and kept down wages by violence. What has the Open Shop Movement done in the textile in- dustry? i 1^ 1.) K THE OPEN SHOP 63 The texitle workers are among the lowest paid workers in ihc United States. According to the latest statistics of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics the average wages of most cot- ton mill workers were more than 40 percent below the minimum necessary to support a family in decency. Since these figures- were compiled the textile capitalists of the entire country have entered upon a vigorous union-smashing campaign with a reduc- tion of wages from 20 to 35 percent. The textile workers have never been thoroly unionized. In Lawrence, Paterson, Utica, and other textile centers, the Open Shop leaders have fought the unions by deporting their organizers without warrants of arrest, shooting down pickets, beating up both men and women, prohi- biting legal public meetings and establishing spy systems. What has the Open Shop Movement done in the mining industry? In West Virginia, which is the center of the Open Shop campaign in the mining industry, the coal barons have conducted a civil war against union members and union organizers. Scores oi union miners have been kilM by company "guards." The Logan County Coal Operators' Association pays $32,700 a year to the county sheriff wlio hires gunmen to drive out imion men and union organizers from the county. A typical contract wiiicli the miners in the "open shop" mines of West Virginia are forced to sign is recorded ly Wintlirop D. Lane in the New York Kvenina I'ost; "Tlie employer will not knowingly employ or keep in his employment any mcm1}cr of the United Mine Workers of America . . it being understood that the policy of said company is to operate a non-union mire, and that it would not enter into any contract of employment under any other conditions." The death rate of zinc miners in the "open shop" mines of .Missouri is more than twice the death rate in union mines where tlie union insists on protection. What has the Open Shop Movement done in the men's clothing industry? The men's clothing industry was for many years an open shop and therefore "sweat shop" industry in which the workers were compeld to work long hours for very low wages. After. years of struggle a powerful union, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, was formd which has not on!y organized the industry in the Inited States and Canada but has increast wages and establisht the 44-hour week. In New York, Baltimore, Chicago, Rochester and other centers the Amalgamated Clothing Workers has set u\) machinery for the ioint control of working conditions with the i \i- ^ I 64 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA manufacturers. Thru this joint machinery all important indus- trial controversies were settle! by Labor Adjustment Boards com- posed of representatives of the workers, the employers and an impartial chairman. The "imlustrial government" of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers and the clothing manufacturers in the large clothing cent ters has been calld by many leading economists the most adv^anced step in industrial relations in America today. In December, 1920, the c'othing manufacturers of New York and Boston, and a number in Baltimore declared war upon the Amali.'amated Clothing Workers for the purpose of reestablisli- mg the open and sweat shop. They began a lockout of about 75,- OCO workers in these three cities and attempted to reduce wages 33 percent. They refused to submit to a joint investigation "of the conditions of the clothing industry and they smasht the mach- mcry for settling disputes with the union. But the lockout faild because of the unity of the workers. ou ^^^^ ^^ *^^. ^^^^ weapon of the employers in the Open Shop Movement? " ^ L'lumployment. How do the employers utilize unemployment periods to aestroy labor unions and reduce wages? They use the army of tlie unemployd as a strike-breaking army. They lay off union leaders on the pretext of ''slack work" and refuse to take them back. They declare lockouts a-ainst work- ers who wdl not accept a wage cut. They refuse to arl)itrate dis- putes ])ecause they think that they can starve workers into sub- mission. Aiperican employers have used every period of unem- ployment for concerted attacks upon organized labor since the panic ''t 183/ when they succeeded in smashing most of the labor unions in the United States and in completely destroying the American labor press. Is it true that American financiers have deliberately created unemployment "to put labor in its place"? W. Jett Lauck, one of the most noted statistical economists in the United States submitted a brief of 125,000 words to the Radway .Labor Board showing that a capital combine of twelve New ^ork financial institutions inaugurated a policy of nation- wide shut-downs in order to cut the prices of farm products and destroy the union scale of wages. Mr. Lauck declares : "The industrial paralysis which has staggcrd America is capi- tal on strike against society. And capital, nationally and inter- nationally organized and concentrated, takes the stand that the " J, T ", I r"' THE OPEN SHOP 65 capital strike shall go on until labor comes to its knees and con- sents to sweeping reductions of wages and also consent to surren- der its right to bargain collectively on a scale co-extensive with the organization of the employers." The twelve great New York financial institutions which are charged with attempting to "deflate labor" center in the house of J. P. Morgan. They are: Mutual Life Insurance Co. First National Bank. Equitable Trust Co. J. P. Morgan & Co. Guaranty Trust Co. Equitable Life Assurance Society. American Surety Co. National Surety Co. Mechanics and Metals National Bank. National City Bank. New York Trust Co. Chase National Bank. The American Woolen Co., one of the most notorious profi- teering corporations in the United States, after three years of un- precedented prosperity, shut down its plants for many months, threw thousands of employes out of work, and then forced the workers to return at reduced wages. Do the employers believe in imions for themselves? Yes. They find that business unions are an absolute necessity. They organize their business interests into corporations and act collectively. The same employers who insist on the right of in- dividual contract for the workers would expel from their busi- ness any stockholder who tried to act individually for the com- pany. E. H. Gary, who believes that labor unions are not nec- essary is the chairman of tJie board of directors of the United States Steel Corporation which is a union of more than 125 in- dependent steel companies capitalized at approximately one billion five hundred million dollers. Do the emloyers apply the Open Shop principle to their own unions? No. Employers who belong to manufacturers' associations do not extend to non-members the privileges, protection or credit of the organization. In order to get the advantage of an em- ployer's union, the employer must pay dues and agree to abide by the rules of his union. The New York Stock Exchange has more rigid rules for the 64 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA manufacturers. Thru this joint machinery all important indus- trial controversies were settle! by Labor Adjustment Boards com- posed of representatives of the workers, the employers and an impartial chairman. The "iiTdustrial government" of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers and the clothing manufacturers in the large clothing cent ters has I)een calld by many leading economists the most advanced step in industrial relations in America today. In December. 1920, the clothing manufacturers of New York and Boston, and a number in Baltimore declared war upon the Amalgamated Clothing Workers for the purpose of reestablisli- mg the open and sweat shop. They began a lockout of about 75,- OCO workers in these three cities and attempted to reduce wages 33 percent. They refused to submit to a joint investigation '"of the conditions of the clothing industry and they smasht the mach- mcry for settling disputes with the union. But the lockout faild because of the unity of the workers. 01- ^^^* ^^ *^^ ^^^^ weapon of the emoloyers in the Open Shop Movement? " ^ Unemployment. How do the employers utilize unemployment periods to destroy labor unions and reduce wages? They use the army of the unemployd as a strike-breaking army. They lay off union leaders on the pretext of "slack work" and refuse to take them back. They declare lockouts against work- ers who wdl not accept a wage cut. They refuse to arbitrate dis- putes because they think that they can starve workers into sub- mission. AiTierican employers have used every period of unem- p oyme^nt tor concerted attacks upon organized labor since the panic ot lcS37 when they succeeded in smashing most of tlie labor unions m the United States and in completely destroying the American labor press. Is it true that American financiers have deliberately created unemployment "to put labor in its place"? W. Jelt Lauck, one of the most noted statistical economists m the United States submitted a brief of 125,000 words to the Radway .Labor Board showing that a capital combine of twelve New ^ork fmancial institutions inaugurated a policy of nation- vvide shut-downs in order to cut the prices of farm products and destroy the union scale of wages. Mr. Lauck declares : "The industrial paralysis which has staggerd America is capi- tal on strike against society. And capital, nationally and inter- nationally organized and concentrated, takes the stand that the <#* \ ili 1 ^:^ THE OPEN SHOP 65 capital strike shall go on until labor comes to its knees and con- sents to sweeping reductions of wages and also consent to surren- der its right to bargain collectively on a scale co-extensive with the organization of the employers." The twelve great New York financial institutions which are charged with attempting to "deflate labor" center in the house of J. P. Morgan. They are: Mutual Life Insurance Co. First National Bank. Equitable Trust Co. J. P. Morgan & Co. Guaranty Trust Co. Equitable Life Assurance Society. American Surety Co. National Surety Co. Mechanics and Metals National Bank. National City Bank. New York Trust Co. Chase National Bank. The American Woolen Co., one of the most notorious profi- teering corporations in the United States, after three years of un- precedented prosperity, shut down its plants for many months, threw thousands of employes out of work, and then forced the workers to return at reduced wages. Do the employers believe in unions for themselves? Yes. They find that business unions are an absolute necessity. They organize their business interests into corporations and act collectively. The same employers who insist on the right of in- dividual contract for the workers would expel from their busi- ness any stockholder who tried to act individually for the com- pany. E. H. Gary, who believes that labor unions are not nec- essary is the chairman of tlie board of directors of the United States Steel Corporation which is a union of more than 125 in- dependent steel companies capitalized at approximately one billion five hundred million dollers. Do the emloyers apply the Open Shop principle to their own unions? No. Employers who belong to manufacturers' associations do not extend to non-members the privileges, protection or credit of the organization. In order to get the advantage of an em- ployer's union, the employer must pay dues and agree to abide by the rules of his union. The New York Stock Exchange has more rigid rules for the 66 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA conduct of its members than any "closed shop" union in the United States. Employers who refuse to join the employers' unions are often forced to join by threat of enforced bankruptcy. Some of the great unions of employers and business men in the United States are: The National Association of Manufacturers. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States. The National Metal Trades' Association. • The National Founders' Association. The National Erectors' Association. The Manufacturers' Association of Illinois, What do the Open Shop employers advocate as a substitute for labor unions? They often attempt to form shop committees and ^'company unions," under their own control. Why does organized labor oppose "company unions*'? 1, Because company unions do not have the power and in- dependence to fight for decent living conditions for the workers. They depend upon the "generosity" of the employer. The employe, who attempts to challenge the power of the employer without the l)acking of a real labor union is discharged as "an agitator." 2. Because company unions have been constantly used by employers to break real unions of the workers and to deceive the workers by fake "democracy." The Western Union Telegraph Co. organized a company union to keep down wages and prevent the organization oi a telegraphers* union. This company union, calld "The Association of Western Union Employes," is used to break up strikes. Tliere is a clause in its constitution which forbids strikes. The waives of telegraphers are low and they have no real protection against discharge. The "Big Five" Packers of Chicago attemi)tcd to give thtir employes a fake plan of "democracy in industry" as a substitute for the union. The features of this plan are characteristic of company unions. The workers were given the "privilege" of 1)ring- ing all complaints to the l)OSs and discussing them in the presi- dent's private office but the millionaire profiteer packers did not concede one atom of power to their workers. The "democracy" was all talk. The plan was scheduled to begin witli a 15 percent wage cut. The stock yard workers rejected the company union and kept their own. Has the Supreme Court of the United States taken the side of the employers in the Open Shop fight? \ THE OPEN SHOP 67 Yes. In the case of Hitchman Coal and Coke Co. the U. S. Supreme Court decided that the United Mine Workers could not organize the workers of certain mines in West Virginia be- cause the miners had been compeld to sign a contract when they started to work never to join a labor union. Under this decision a starving man who has no other place to work and who signs a non-union contract cannot be askt to join a labor union. The union organizer who asks him to join the union may be put in jail. Are the Open Shop leaders justified in demanding a wage reduction at the present time? No. More than half of the American workers are now earn- ing less than a "minimum of comfort" wage. Millions have been unemployd for many months. To reduce wages at the present time means starvation and crime. What proof is there that American workers are not now receiving a living wage? During the war the cost of living increast out of all propor- tion to the increase in wages. It has been estimated that the cost of living increast 40 percent more than wages. Before the war the Industrial Relations Commission, appointed by President Wilson reported that one third to one half of the American work- ers receivd less than a living wage. With the increast cost of living the workers were poorer today relatively than they were before the war. The present depression with the resulting un- employment has added to their misery a hundred fold. What has the Catholic Church of America said about the Open Shop Movement? The National Catholic Welfore Council thru its Social Action Department has said : "The 'open shop' drive of certain groups of American em- ployers is becoming so strong that it threatens not only the welfare of the wage earners, but the whole structure of industrial peace and order. Employers sometimes favor the 'open- shop' beca\ise they do not want to be limited in the employment of men to union members. But the present drive is not of that kind. The evi- dence shows that in its organized form it is not merely against the 'closed shop,' but against unionism itself and particularly against collective bargaining. Of what avail is it for workers to be permitted by the employers to become members of unions if the employers will not deal with the unions? The workers might as well join golf clubs as labor unions if the present 'open shop' campaign is successful. "The 'open ship' drive masks under such names as 'The Ameri- can Plan' and hides behind the pretense of American freedom. Yet its real purpose is to destroy all effective labor unions, and li 68 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA thus subject the working people to the complete domination of the employers. Should it succeed in the measure that its pro- ponents hope it will thrust far into the ranks of the underpaid the body of American working people. . . "The unions were necessary even during the war when work- ing people found their labor in great demand. They are still more imperative now, and they must keep their strength and grow. Otherwise we shall sec a repetition of the old bad days when the workers were utterly dependent upon their employers." Bishop J. Henry Tihen, Catholic Bishop of Denver in address- ing the Knights of Columbus at Colorado Springs said: "So surely as capital succeeds in forcing the open shop upon labor and wiping out the unions, so surely will slavery have retunid to our land. It will mean just that, slavery. They are honest in their beliefs, perhaps— the employers; but the slave-holder of other (lays was honest in his belief that the Negro would be far worse off if freed of his bondage. But right arose and struck down slavery." What have the Protestant Churches of America said about the Open Shop Movement? The Commission of the Church and Social Service of the Fed- eral Council of the Churches of Christ in America, representing 31 Protestant denominations and 19,500,000 church members, has issued the following statement concerning the Open Shop Move- ment: "The relations between employers and workers thruout the United States arc seriously affected at this moment by a cam- paign whicli is 1;eing conducted for the 'open shop' policy— the so- called 'American Plan' of emp'oymcr.t, the terms now being fre- quently used to designate establishments that are definitely anti- union. Obviously a shop of this kind is not an 'open shop' l)ut a 'closed shop'— closed against meml)ers of labor unions. "Wc feel impeld to call pub!ic attenton to the fact that a very widespread impression exists that the present 'open s'lop' campaign is inspired in many quarters by this antagonism to union lalx.r. Many disinterested persons are convinced that an attempt is being made to destroy the organized labor movement. Any suc!i attempt must l)e vicwd with apprehension by fair-minded peoplv'." What has the N. Y. World said about the Open Shop Movement? The New York Wor'd in an editorial has said: ".'\n organized and well-financed open shop campaign can i^rcate a great d^al of industrial trouble in the United States and add inimeasuraljly to the difficulties of reconstruction, but it will never succeed except by wrecking the industrial fabric of tlie country, 1 (.cause there is no real honesty and sincerity back of it. There is nothing l)ack of it but greed and sordidness, and m the long run greed and sordidness cannot dictate the economic l)oHcies of the American pcop'v'." How does the Open Shop Movement destroy Americanism? \ THE OPEN SHOP 69 1. By destroying the American standard of living. 2. By denying to workers the constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and free assemblage. 3. By preventing progress toward American democracy in industry. American democracy means government by the co:i- sent of the governd, by the Open Shop Movement means the government of American business by private interests for their own profit. How can organized labor defeat the Open Shop Movement? By a general campaign for education and organization, ])y close co-operation among the existing unions, and by the building up of industrial unions which include all the workers in an in- dustry. The movement for worker's education is spreading rapidly thruout the United States. Labor colleges, and forums have hecn establisht in New York, Boston, Baltimore, Springfield, Wash- ington, Rochester, Harrisburg, Reading and many other cities. The workers are beginning to see that they must know something about social and industrial problems before they can fight the employers effectively. Have unions in the past workt together effectively in fighting the Open Shop Movement? No. They have often been divided and weakend by peay jurisdictional disputes, the jealousy of local and international offi- cers and indifference to the great mass of unskilld workers. Craft unions in the same industry have spent much of their energy in fighting each other. The Interchurch World Movement in its report on the Great Steel Strike declared that one of the most important reasons for the failure of the strike was the lack of co-operation among the twenty-four international unions which took part in the strike. The situation demanded one union of steel workers, co-operating directly with the railroad workers. What have been the most effective weapons for fighting the Open Shop Movement in the past? 1. The 100 percent union shop backt by a spiritually and financially sound labor organization. 2. Industrial unions which include all the workers in the industry. 3. Co-operation in making the trade agreements to include all the workers in all the crafts in the industry. The United Mine Workers of America, which is the largest and most powerful union in America is an industrial union in- 70 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA 3. 4. 5. eluding all workers engaged in mining. Walter Drew, leader of the Open Shop Movement in ::]ie building trades has confest that the strongest weapon the huiM- ing trades unions have is the sympathetic strike. He declared be- fore the employers of Rochester. "If you builders could eliminate the sympatheic strike from the Ijuilding industry, you would have gnnc ninety-nine one-hundredths of the way toward solving the prol)lems of the industry". What does American labor want as a substitute for the Open Shop? The union shop because it guarantees — 1. A living wage. Protection against unjust discharge. Hours for rest and play. Equal division of work during times of unemployment. Self respect. In our industrial .system the workers are always on the de- fensive. The employers own the jobs and the tools. They have an overwhelming advantage in 1)argaining with the workers. The worker must fight to get his jol) at a living wage and then fight to hold it. In that constant liattle the labor army must be solidly organized, if necessary by conscription. Every a1)le bodied worker must carry his share of the l)urden. An army which is fighting on the defensive cannot afford to have in its ranks any slackers or spies. That is why labor demands the 100 percent union shop. That is why the workers say. "We will not work with anyone who is disloyal to our cause." AVHAT IS YOUR ANSWER? \()U belong to the working class. It is the only class worth lielonging to. Vou produce the good things of life but you do not often share in those things because you have not learnd to organize as well as your masters. Your masters have not only learnd to organize themselves. They have learnd to organize you. They have learnd to organize you for their own purposes. They organize you for war and you marcht away to the music of bands and the shouts of the multitude . . . to die for "democracy." Those of you who came back found that the employers had made prodigious profits while you were away. Xow the employers are trying to organize you for "American- ism." The employers wanted you to fight for what they falsely call Americanism. They wanted you to fight for democracy in Eu- THE OPEN SHOP n s V / rope, but they do not want it for American industry. When will you learn to organize yourselves? Vou are the Americans. You make America all that she is. You build the railroads, operate the mines, make the clothes . . fight the wars. And now the employers tell you that you cannot contry the Ikircau lish a brief anthology of llic Open Shop Movement. One theme runs thru all of it, that, in tlie words of tlie National Conference of State Manufacturers' Asso- ciation, all people "have the right to work when they please, for whom they please, and on whatever terms are mutually agreed upon l)etween em])loyc and employer." These are nnWc words. They evoke a sense of freedom that is not only idealistic but idyllic: they su:4gest a (iolden Age in which compulsion and con- trol, and the whole- horrid apparatus of social organization; have disappeard. and nothing remains but the right to folle)W the faticy t- ^ 4 THE OPEN SHOP 75 where it listeth. In short, the formula of the manufacturers' asst)- ciation is the doctrine of philosophical anarchy in its purest and most absolute form. It presupposes a society of unlimited rights exercised without hindrance by the standard of individual pk^a- sure. The poet who conceivd this Utopia of the free was naturally not enslaved by the facts of life. Indeed he was not thinking of the world as it is, but the world as in the millenium it ought to be. Now it is no task of ours to discourage the brave excite- ments of youth. These challenges to the social order, however reckless or immature, must be tolerated, in the confident hope that experience of life, a knowledge of the world, contact with prac- tical affairs will gradually teach these mooncalves the sober and more prosaic truth. For of course any one who talks about the right to work when he pleases, for whom he pleases, is a moon- calf, even tho he happens to be the hired publicity man of so respectable a crowd as the manufacturers' association of twenty- two states. Let us imagine his iitopia in action. John Smith, it happens, is pleased one fine morning to take a job. It occurs to him that he wouM rather enjoy driving the Twentieth Century Limited. So he walks into the office of the President of the New York Central railroad and says: "It pleases me to work for you this morning. The train to be sure does not ordinarily start until 2:45 but I'll start now. I work when I please." "Right you are," says the president, "let us mutually agree on terms. What'U you take for the job?" "Well," says John Smith, "Chicago does not interest me much, but I shall enjoy the ride. Let's make it an even twenty." "Too much," says the president. "I generally pay about ten." "Hm," says John Smith, "I tell you. Let's split the difference." "Fine," says the president, in our country it is recognized as fundamental that we work when we please, for whom we please, and on whatever terms are mutually agreed upon. . . You say you will start at once?" "Almost at once," says John. "I've got just thirty pages of the Age of Innocence to finish, and a luncheon engagement at the Union League Club to call off ; I'll be ready around eleven." Having stopt for a shave and a shine, John did not actually start until twelve-thirty. As the train sped up the Hudson Valley he drank in the air and thought that except in a Veronese at the Pitti and in two bits of early Ming that he had so loved when he was staying at Albermarle House with Margot and Colonel fl 76 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA Repington, he had never seen such a celestial blue. Colonel Repington suddenly reminded liim of lunch, and at Rough - keepsie he stopt, caild up Franklin Roosevelt, and was welcomd with open arms. Mrs. Stratton was perfectly enchanting, and about five o'clock, luncli being over, John strolld down to the traiij. slowly fin'shing his excellent cigar. Towards seven he pulld into Albany, and took a cab to the Ten Eyck, where he thought lie would change i-r dinner. A telegram from the perspicacious president was brought to him. It read: "Forgive the unwarranted intrusion upon your private affairs. A harsh and meddlesome government iias I;eui inquiring all afternoon when the mails are likely to reach Chicaeo. I realize that you work only when you please and for w'lM- y<.u phase, but as one man to another, won't y ni advise mc of your I'lans." J.-b.n tlinii'-^bt this over for an liour or two, reflecting sadly on the increasing restriction of liberty due to the influtricc of M> cow. a^ked himself whether President Harding was by any chance miectcd Vvith Bolshevism, and wonderd wliethcr to ring up Ralpli Kasley, the American Defense Society, or the Imperial Wizard of tlie Ku Klux Klan. On sober second thought he felt that he ):ad bater decide the question in the morning, when he was fresh from a good night's sleep. So he turned in, renewed his shaken spirits by reading a few resonant passages from the Weekly Review, and fell asleep, on'y to find himself in the midst of the wildest and most hideous nightmare. As is usual in sucli dreams, some features of the previous day's experience were reproduced, though distorted. He went in search of a job. But instead of finding his employer, the President, he was shunted from porters to ticket agent.s, and from ticket agents to employment offices, and from there to a long line of waiting men. Finally he was intervievvd. His desire to run the Twentieth Century tliat afternoon was greeted with a roar of irreverent laughter but he was told that he could try out as the second assistant helper on tlie local freight between Jericho and Mineola. He would report at 6 a. m. The wages were $4.32. What, he didn't like this? He wanted to work when he p'easd, for whom he pleasd, on terms mutually agreed upon? He was welcome to try somewhere else. This was a free country, to be sure, but not for nuts. In the futile and exasperating manner of dream.s, he repeated all this several times, being shunted about, standing in line, being told to take it or leave it, never once encountering a believer in the Open Shop. .And just as he was trying to agree upon something with 1 ^ THE OPEN SHOP 77 } ( fcy ' Mr. Gary, he woke up with a start, pincht himself, and thankt heaven that it was only a nightmare. Whether John's experience or John's nightmare is nearer the facts as they exist in 1921, we do not commit ourselves for fear of seeming to disagree with the fundamental principles of the Great Crusade. But on the off chance that John's night:":v/c might conceivaldy be true in two or three b.ackv.'ard spots, we ven- ture to set down a few ])elieis about so distressing a condition. If we are wrong, if in this country, but for the trade unions, men have a right to work for whom they please, when they p'ease. on terms nuitually agreed upon, then nothing which fullovvS is worth C' n- sidering. For what follows departs from the view of the Open Shop enthusiasts only in this, that it considers not whether the "rights" exist, but whether any one can today exercise them. It assumes in other words that a right on which men cannot act is as valuai)le as property on the moon. Those who are faint-hearted about the Open Shop Move- ment believe that the standards of employment, of discipline, of production, of pay, and of hours are no longi^r n-:alters of in- dividual fancy, but have to be fixt for whole industries. Tlicy. therefore, ineiuire who is to fix then, and they ])elieve that the real meaning of what is calld tlie Open Shop is the desire of the employer to fix them without consulting the men who are hired, are disc'plind, do the manual w'Oik, receive the pay envelope, and punch the time clock. They arc inclined to regard the phrases about the right to v.'ork when you please, for whom you please, on terms mutually agreed upon between employer and employe as an inaccurate, nay "highfalutin," description of what these manu- facturers' associations are after. They come to the basic fact that standards have to l)e fixt by somebody. For a completely un- standardized industry is a sweatshop ; a completely standardized industry, like steel, where the standards are fixt entirely by the employer is * * well, what is it? It is an industry where revolt is an institution. Therefore, the critics of the Open Shop argue that the standards of an industry shall be fixt by agree- ment between an association of the workers and the organized emple^yers. Apart from all considerations of human dignity, equality of bargaining power, or such things as justice and democracy, admittedly rather vague, they argue that a standard so fixt has an authority that it is not possible to achieve any other way. For it has the collective authority of the workers and of the whole in- dustry behind it. 78 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA The evils of the closed union shops are manifest enough, and they do not argue for it. They argue for an open union, open to a'.l qualified workers without discrimination, associated with the organized employers to fix standards of work, and with an im- partial machinery to decide individual cases on the basis of the standards agreed upon. They assert that this is the only form of open shop adapted to modern industry. They claim that ex- perience demonstrates, and that events will prove that the moon- calf conception of the open shop is as unworkable as every other kind of social anarchy. ,-( 1 V ■>* ^ i GENERAL DISCUSSIONS GENERAL PUBLIC SENTIMENT AND THE OPEN- CLOSED-SHOP CONTROVERSY A vast proportion of the literature dealing with the open or closed sliop question is propaganda material. Individuals or in- stitutions having a personal or other direct interest at stake enter the lists for or against one side or the other. Where such bias of judgment is not direct, it is often indirect, and its influence can- not lie traced ; it is sometimes more or less unconscious c)n the part of the pleader himself. Aside from the organs of particular interests the periodical pui)lications which show the liveliest interest in our question are perhaps the weekly journals of opinion devoted to comment on current events. The independent dai^y papers also discuss tlie ([uestion vigorously in their editorial and news columns when- ever a particular event of the day brings it to the front. And many events during the past two or three years have servd to call forth such comment. Few of these comments go far in discussing the fundamental question on its merits. They rather express a judgment as to whether this particular employer is justified in his policy, or that other labor leader and his union are in the right on the immediate issue. Our debaters are mainly concernd with fundamental con- siderations, and clear-thinking requires that a great amount of controversial chaff be sifted to find the grain of truth and Sdcial value. It is impossil)le in our liulletin to reprint many of the com- ments from the daily press. The most widely read and lruste r Commercial, means that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". "There may be the claim of right behind Bethlehem Steel's attitude in refusing to provide materials" for closed shop contractors, but, adds the Commercial carefully, "that it is a moral right will not be universally conceded." But a large number of dailies, many of them conserva- tive, and in general friendly to the open shop principle, are con- vinced that Mr. Grace is going altogether too far. Mr. Grace is "overvaluing a principle", is the way the Buffalo Express puts it; he is "fighting minority tyranny with despotism", according to the Brooklyn Eagle, which finds "depotism by organized capital as reprehensible as minority tyranny by organized labor". The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle contends that there is no more justice in trying to force the open shop policy "on concerns that prefer to employ only union labor than there would be in union-labor leaders trying to force the closed-shop principle on the Bethlehem Steel plants". Similar observations come from the Boston Transcript, the Syracuse Post-Standard, the Newark News, and the Louisville Courier-Journal. The New York Journal of Commerce, an organ of business and finance admits that — "Any attempt for any reason on the part of steel manu- facturers to interfere with the right of contractors to determine their own labor policies is too closely similar to an effort on the part of labor in the building or other trades to dictate the labor policy of the steel industry to appeal to the impartial observer. The contractor is said to find it to the interest of efficient production in his business to employ union labor even if in so doing it is necessary to acquiesce in the closed-shop principle. If this is the case it is desirable both from the standpoint of abstract right and of public interest that he be free to do so." It seems to the New York Globe that while New-Yorkers may be properly concernd over the possibility that the Bethle- hem policy has in some cases "increast the cost of building here by from 5 to 10 per cent", there is a much more significant angle to the situation. In general, says The Globe, the union has given labor a weapon without disarming capital and has thus created a balance of power, and it adds: "The open shop as the steel-makers propose to create it apparently means the destruction of this balance. It is for this reason that the action of the steel manufacturers takes on a more sinister aspect than even the most determ!nd and wide- spread labor movement". Likewise, the New York World sees the "Brindells of Big ?i i 84 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA Business' taking their place "alongside the Brindells of Or- ganized Lahor." "The main moral and economic distinction be- tween the coarse Brindell methods and the refined Grace me- thods was that the labor autocrats collected their pay in cash and the steel autocrats collected their pay in the form of divi- dends out of sweated immigrant employes." In the World's opinion, "the Brindellism of big business is even more of a public menace than the Brindellism of organized labor", and it proceeds to develop this thought in another edtiorial: *'\Yhen manufacturers undertake to dictate the particular kind of la!)oi- that purchasers of their products shall employ they liave but one step to take before limiting builders and owners as to the u^e and the occupancy of their properties. Aside from the intolerable tyranny of this situation as respects capital, labor, and housing in New York, the attitude of the steel-makers con- firms everything charged against them last year at the time of the strike and since substantiated by the report of the Inter- church Committee. "Thus the existence of an industrial autocracy which defies Congresses and snubs Presidents easily becomes a menace to great populations far removed from its thundering mills and squalid camps of imported labor. At great cost it supprest the effort of its employes to better working conditions." Naturally, to a Socialist paper like the New York Call, the newly reveald attitude of Bethlehem Steel and other steel con- cerns gives it a ready answer to conservative editors who have been denouncing the "one big union" and "direct action". Here is a "one big union" which "believes in solidarity of all unions of capital, stands for the sympathetic strike of capital, and ob- serves the policy of penalizing any other capital unions that scab upon the one big union. It believes also in direct action for the control of government for its own purposes". As the above quotations deal particularly with the steel and other building industries, the following deals with the clothini? trade. As noted elsewhere, the two American industries where the open shop fight has assumed its most bitter aspects is steel and the textile interests. These quotations are from the LITER- ARY DIGEST of January 8th, 1921. Accompanying the article is a picture of Sidgney Hillman, President of the Amalgamated C'othing Workers, who is quoted as accusing the clothing manufac- turers of New York of trying to keep prices up and to "re- turn to the sweat shop if possib! ):e. r\ ■■- v^ I tr^A A THE OPEN SHOP 85 THE "OPEN-SHOP" FIGHT IN THE CLOTHING TRADE Literary Digest— Jan. 8, 192L PP. 18-19 A PICTURE OF ALL AMERICAN INDUSTRY, the "somewhat highly colord," is found by the New York Globe in the crisis in the New York clothing trade, and other dailes agree that there is not a separate incident but the initial phase of a general movement. This "garment trade" battle in the open shop war is* deemd the more significant because in the chief cities where men's clothing is made industrial peace has long been maintaind by an agreement between the chief union and th-j manufacturers, which includes voluntary submission to an im- partial tribunal. The long and bitter war of words in the New York papers — one side being accused of aiming to bring back "sweat-shops" and the other of setting up "Soviets" — began when the New York clothing manufacturers decided not to renew their agreement last summer but to start up after the slack fall season with lower wages, piece-work and the open shop. There had been minor strikes and lockouts, of little prac- tical importance, because hardly any work is done in the fall season. But as the new season comes on the clothing workers' union is raising a million-dollar strike fund, sending out pickets, planning for a long strike, and has made an alliance with four other needle trades, which brings 400,000 workers with the needle into a close union for defensive purposes. The president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers' Union and the head of the New York Manufacturers' Association have written so many letters and publisht so many statements as somewhat to con- fuse the real issues at stake. The question, says the New York Journal of Commerce, is not so much of wages or efficiency of labor "as of methods and nature of machinery for the control of such questicns". The issue, observes the Brooklyn Eagle, "is not one of wages but one of shop control". The clothing workers' union, it says, "stands for the Soviet idea of domina- tion by workmen in the places where they are employd. To this employers are bitterly opposed. They hold that it is ut- terly incompatible with eflficiency." And The Eagle, thus ap- parently sympathizing with the employers, "can not help feel- ing that the working people in this field are being badly led." But as the New York Evening Post sees it, the cry of Sovietism is quite unjustified. "Freed of its propaganda sentences and technical details", continues The Evening Post, "the clothing 86 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA manufacturers' statement boils down to an argument for full and unmodified control of the industry by the employers, and for the theory of unrestraind competition nut only as between the Ww York market and other markets, but also as between manufac- turers in this market. Freed similarly of its propaganda sen- tences the workers' statement boils down to an argument for joint control of the industry by employers and workers under the arbitration of an impartial public chairman, and for the newer theory of regulation not only of individual shops in the New York market, but of the entire market one industry as a whole". Here, says the New York paper, is an "issue of gen- eral social interest with which the public has a right to concern itself": The public can not accept irresponsible control by any one group in industry. Such control has already brought too many evil results, in the form of social discontent and disturbance. The worker's contention for a share in the control of his in- dustry and in the determination of quesions affecting his stand- ard of life is a natural human reaction. Sooner or later Ameri- can employers will have to consider that protest, without pre- judice and without calling names and will have to meet and solve together with the workers the problem of joint regula- tion of industry so that it will run steadily without stops and waste. The New York clothing industry now offers a rare op- portitnity for the rational solution of this recurring problem." How important is this matter of "control" in the clothing industry appears in its constant reappearance in the heated de- bate between the manufacturer and the workers, and may per- haps be better understood if we present a few of the facts con- cerning the conflict and its causes as they have been brought out of late in the daily and weekly press. The Amalgamated Cloth- ing Workers of America was formd in 1914. Prior to that time, says the New Republic in a historical survey, "the 'sweat- shop', with all that it connotes, is a fair summary description of the New York clothing market". "The operatives in the indus- try were underpaid and furiously overworkt in unsanitary shops." .\t this time ''21 per cent of them earnd from $5.00 to $10.00 a week, and only 3 per cent, were earning more than $25.00 a week". The new union "successively crowded out the more notorious abuses and progressively lifted the level of life". Then. "Profiting by the experience of industrial peace gained in Chicago at Hart. Schaffner & Marx's, the union sought to in- troduce the same methods into the New York market. Early in 1919 a machinery of government was set up in New York. •^i. U ih \' ■4 r\* \ I THE OPEN SHOP 87 The essence of the machinery consisted in subjecting the entire market to a control which curbed the individualism of both manufacturers and workers, and made both submit to a rule of industrial law which promist stability, minimized brute eco- nomic power in a higly seasonal occupation, and safeguarded the public interest as well, by enforcement through an impartial tribunal." On August 26 the agreement expired. Slack times had suc- ceeded boom times, and the Clothing Manufacturers' Associa- tion of New York made certain demands when negotiations for renewal of the agreement began. The manufacturers declared that a 50 per cent wage-reduction was essential in order to meet competition in other markets and the public demands. And on September 24 specific demands were made of the union, includ- ing the right of the manufacturer to install piece-work, coopera- tion of workers in maintaining production, and freedom to dis- cipline and hire workers and to introduce improved machinery. In answer to this the Amaigamated askt for a joint survey of trade conditions as a preliminary to readjustment of wages. The manufacturers declined, and on December 2 submitted an ulti- matum demanding piece-work, lower wages, and the right to discharge. The ultimatum was rejected in a referendum of the workers, whereupon the Clothing Manufacturers' Association broke off all relations with the Amalgamated, a step which the Boston Association took at about the same time. Then began the series of charges and counter-charges by Sidney Hillman, president of the Amalgamated, and William Handler, president of the Clothing Manufacturers' Association. The case of the employers is containd in a formal statement whose main para- graphs we quote: "There is and can be no hope for the saving of the Xcw York clothing market, unless: "1. The relationship between the employers and workers, dealing together, either individually or through the association of the former and the union of the later, lie reestahlisht upon renunciation of the fundamental revoluntionary doctrine and pur- pose of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers' Union as stated in its constitution, as follows: "To put the organized working class in actual control of the system of production" to the end that they shall 'be ready to take possession of it'. "The manufacturers in the clothing trade do not intend to lend themselves to the establishment of Sovietism in their in- dustry. "2. That due rewards be given to workers on the basis solely of service, efficiency, and competency. ¥i r- \ 88 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA "3. That there be renounced the present doctrine of life tenure of employment of workers, without regard to efficiency. "4. That there be rc^stord to the manufacturer the right at all times to determine where he shall buy and where he shall cause to be manufactured his product. "5. That the walking delegate be forever banisht. "The protestations of the union that the manufacturers have inaugurated a 'lockout' and propose to return to sweat-shop con- ditions are false. Sweat-shop conditions are today impossible, through the safe guards afforded workers by our present labor laws." In a statement made for the New York Evennig Post, Mr. Hillman says: "The issue is government; self-government by those who make up the industry, that is, the workers and the employers; joint government". The workers agree that people are paying too much for clothes, but "let us in the industry jointly find out 'why'". The workers, according to Mr. Hill- man, are willing to tackle the problems of prices, wages, and incrcast production "by joint inquiry and action." Accordin-:^ to the union leader, the clothing manufacturers, "saying they could not make the profits they made just after the war", •■al).)l:sht the impartial chairman machinery, the union, and all control. They are simply out for a gamble". He continues: "Some employers seem unable to escape the temptation to practice a ho'd-up whenever conditions look favorable. The union feels more loyalty to the good of the industrv. When em- ployers in a boom market began frantically bidd'ng'for labor and boosting wages irresponsibility, the Amalgamated set its face against those wild temporary increases and kept wages stable. "The rn-'ons' position is that the good of the pubiic and the good of the industry depend on subordinating temporary advan- tage—grabbing—to orderly settlements under the system of government csta'ilisht f.^r liie industry. The union has* its feet on the ground. The government we talk of we have been carry- ing on for ten years. Whatever readjustment may be necessary to meet conditions in the industry can all be made under that joint control. The New York manufacturers' notorious in- efficiencies of management were soon to have come before that government; then the manufacturers turnd tail and tried to hide behind labor. "Some of these employers are not cju"te civilized, tlicy are a little atavistic, they are having their last fling at freebootinV. But in their hearts they know well that they cannot be the whole gov- ernment. They cannot rule the industry as years ago. speed" the workers like machines, and scrap the workers like old machines. They knc)w that government will be set up again and that it will l)e "a going government." Elsewhere in this pamphlet quotation is made from the volume prepared by a Commission of Inquiry for the Interchurch World C4; ^-f 1.*.*' » I U i ^ f THE OPEN SHOP Movement relative to the great Steel Strike. Church agencies have frequently issued pronouncements bearing upon the contro- versy over the open or closed shop. This further section from the LITERARY DIGEST furnishes comment from church papers and church organizations under the title, "The Churches vs. the Open Shop." It is taken from the issue of the LITERARY DI- GEST. February 19th, 1921. CHURCH VS. THE OPEN SHOP The CATHOLIC CHURCH, the United Protestant Churches, and the largest Protestant denomination have united with labor in condemnation of the open shop movement, and the definite issue between thousands of manufacturers and employers on the one hand and the official spokesmen of the Christian Church on the other has apparently l)een raisd. The tides of controversy run high. It is charged by the supporters of the so-called "American Plan" of employment that the Church, in thus taking up the pro- gram of labor is interferring in the matters entirely beyond its concern. But a Methodist minister testifying before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor insists that "anything that has a broad bearing upon humanity, like hours of labor, working conditions, and rates of pay, is the business of the Church." With this view of their duty in mind, the Commission on the Church and Social Service of Federal Council of Churches of Christ in Amer- ica, the social department of the National Catholic Welfare Council, and the social service committee of the Methodist Church have issued statements upholding labor's contention that the open shop, or "American plan of employment," is in reality but a camou- flaged campaign for a c'osed shop, "a shop closed against mem- bers of the union" — warning us of dire perils should it be estab- lisht. Any such step, we are told, must occasion alarm, and Christian leaders, "listening to the rumbles of distant thunder," point to conditions in Europe as a warning example of what may happen here should a crisis be evoked by the present agitation. While advocates of the "American plan" contend that the laborer will be free to work when and where and for whom he pleases, the Church replies that the movement for the open shop will mean the return to wage slavery and the loss of all that has been, and may be, gained from collective bargaining. There is a wide-spread conviction that an attempt is being made to destroy organized labor, says the Federal Council statement, and "any such attempt must be viewed with apprehension by fair-minded people." To pledge . I ':! ' , ^ -.ir 4. 90 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA a man against affiliation with a union, we are told, "is as unfair and inimical to economic freedom and to the interest of society as is corresponding coercion exercised by labor bodies in behalf of the closed shop." Therefore, "It seems incumbent upon Christian employers to scrutinize carefully any movement, however plausible, which is likely to resu't in denying to the workers such affiliations as will in their judgment best safeguard their interests and promote their welfare to the precipitate disastrous industrial conflicts at a time when the country needs good will and co-operation between employers and employes." In the Catholic statement likewise is found the conviction that the present drive is not merely against the closed shop, "but against unionism itself, and particularly against . collective bargaining. Should it succeed in the measure that its proponents hope, it will thrust far into the ranks of the underpaid body of American work- ing peop!e." So "To aim now at putting into greater subjection the workers in industry is blind and foolhardy. The radical movements and disturbances in Europe ought to hold a lesson for the employers of America. And the voice of the American People ought to 1)e raisd in the endeavor to drive this lesson home." Warning is also utterd by the Federation for Social Service of the Methodist Church. In a statement prepared for that body by its secretary. Dr. Harry F. Ward, and its president, Bishop Francis J. McConnell, we are told that when we consider what has happend in the steel industry it seems "quite clear that the suc- cess of the present open shop campaign would mean the estab- lishment of a chased shop — closed against union labor, and wouM return large numbers of wage earners to the living standards of sweated industries." Furthermore — "In the- light of what is now happening in certain local min- ing districts in West Virginia, we regard it as certain that thv^ con- summation of this open shop campaign will perpetuate and increase chaos, anarchy, and warfare in our industrial life, will intolerably delay the development of constitutional democracy in industry, which the churches have declared to be the Christian method of industrial control." The whole open shop campaign is simply an attempt to hoodoo us, thinks The Herald of Gospel Liberty (Christian), which says it is "simply audacious presumption upon the ignorance or the indifference of the masses of the American people to call their t. I *v J f i THE OPEN SHOP 91 objective 'the American principle of employment,'" in the opinion of the New York W^orld (Catholic). "The fight is against organized labor, no more, no less. If an applicant for work must pledge himself against joining a union, or a union man is refused employment, or a man who while em- ployd, joins a union and is discharged, we may be pardond from regarding this as the great boon of the open shop. This is about the type of freedom we might expect in Russia." It is time that the Church enterd into this particular contro- versy, thinks the Sioux City Daily Tribune, which rejoices that no longer can it be called a "namby-paml)y institution, timorously shunning all conflict." Opposition to the "American plan" is wel- comd, for, in the opinion of this newspaper, "the closed shop has become firmly entrencht in the American industry, and its re- moval v/ould he attended by all the pain and danger of a major surgical operation." But The Manufacturers' Record argues that the open shop movement is not against labor, as Church statements would have us believe. Furthermore, the Federal Council, as an organized attempt to represent the entire Protestant churches, is "without excuse for existence," we are told, and therefore — "It has no right to speak for the religious life of this country, and its attempt to influence the nation against the open shop who are in favor of the open shop and whose religious convictions, we venture to say, are founded on a deeper religious life than those who undertake to direct this organization in the hope of developing an eccleciastical autocracy such as that on which men of the same spirit threw away $9,000,000 of other people's money in their effort to build up the Interchurch World Movement. "The open shop movement is a movement for the freedom of a man to work untrammeld by the dictates of radical labor leaders. It is the only basis on which there can be freedom and liberty and independence on the part of the individual employe or employer. The aggressive leadership of rank socialistic labor union men in trying to destroy the open shop— the right of every man to work when and where he pleases and for whom he pleases, and the right of an employer to employ whom he pleases unbost by an unprincipled gang of radical walking delegates, must be the foundation on which to build the safety and the permanency of this Government." These church attacks on the open shop campaign are not rel- isht in a!l church circles; we find The Presl)yterian of the South t k 92 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA (Richmond), for instance, declaring that "this is a matter of business, which the Church or a Council representing it has nothing to do with. OPEN SHOP AND OUTSIDE DOMINATION Union labor leaders generally maintain that the open shop would destroy labor unions, and that the campaign for the open shop is organized for that purpose. A writer connected with the Babson Institute in Bostson treats this matter after the fashion indicated below. The writings of Roger Babson, the eminent en- gineer and statistician, are now being widely read, and the Insti- tute in Boston has been establisht by him to extend the service which he has been rendering personally. One of labor's serious grievances at this time is made in the charge that the "open shop" agitation of American industry is essentially unfair and an attempt to destroy the organization of labor in general. In so far as the charge is well taken, it is a fair grievance. In most cases, however, the writer contends, that the open shop agitation is intended only to counteract the baneful influence of the union in the matter of outside dictation and domination. There are employers who perhaps advocate the "open shop" as a means of disorganizing any group action on the part of employes, but these are decidedly in the minority, who hold these views. To these employers, the' open shop really means the closed non-union shop. This for the industrialist, is going to as great an extreme as the closed union shop is, for the trade unionist. The open shop has been declared a great American principle because it is essentially in line with the "freedom of contract" which is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. It is quite easy to see that the closed non-union shop, and the closed union shop, as usually understood, are both in violation of this constitutional freedom. The employer who urges the open shop in the real sense of the word, often claims this grand and glorious principle of freedom of contract as the basis of his con- tention. However sincere this may be in the abstract, it would be better if he would state frank'y the reason nearest his heart, that is, the prevention of unfair union domination in his business. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and it is a piece of common sense which is going to appeal to labor some day. A patriotic rppeal, however sincere, when a practical, materialistic problem is inv(ilvd, is not as effective as a frank statement of the situation. CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND PITTSBURG EMPLOYERS Under this heading the New Republic, February 16th, 1921, prints an editorial from which excerpts appear below. Pittsburgh is the most important center of the steel industry in the United States. THE OPEN SHOP 93 » t-. ^ l; Recently some of the' New York morning newspapers carried a dispatch from Pittsburgh which described a campaign into which the Employers* Association of that city had recently enterd. It had decided to convert Pittsburg into an "open shop" town. What the Association meant by the "open shop" the dispatch reveald by tracing an analogy between its idea of an "open shop" and the labor policy of the United States Steel Corporation. The Steel Corporation has always kept its shops open to unorganized labor and so far as possible closed to organized labor ; and it has re- cently carrid this practice a step further by refusing to furnish structural steel to contractors in New York City who employd union labor in erecting it. The Employers' Association of Pitts- burg in adopting this conception of an "open shop" not unnaturally took over with it the same disposition to use aggressive tactics in making it prevail. The managers of the Association began to look for some opponent of the "open shop" or some friend of organized labor which they could deprive of any further opportunity for mis- chief. They soon discovered a victim. The article declares that this victim was found in the ^^ W. C. A. of Pittsburg whose campaign for funds was formally re- sisted by the Employers' Association on grounds set forth in a letter from Mr. William Frew Long, Vice-President and Gen- eral Manager. This letter states that "some of the things the 1'. VV. C. A. believes in and endorses are as follows: Industrial Demo- cracy, Collective Bargaining, A Share in Shop Control and Man- agement by the Workers, Labor's desire for an equitable share in the profits and management of industry, protection of workers from enforced unemployment, a minimum wage, government labor exchanges (exployment offices), experiments in co-operative ownership." "Recent radical and ill-advised efforts of religious and quasi-religious bodies to 'regulate industry' " Mr. Long com- pares to the manner in which a "a bull regulates a china shop." Reference is made in the same letter to "the misuse of funds by the ill-fated Interchurch World Movement." After about two columns of comment the article in Xew Re- public concludes : Air. Long's comparison of the actual effect of an industrial program such as that of the Y. W. C. A. to the traditional be- havior of a bull in a china shop is not altogether felicitous. The f roup who are playing the part of the rampageous 1)ull in the moral drama of American industry today are surely the advocates of the "open shop." The fragile china which the l)ull is charg- ing is the array of principles which the Christian denominations have placed in the window and on the shelves in order to ad- vertise and exemplify the somewhat neglected application of Christianity to modern life. A fev; of the Protestant clergy made a courageous and intelligent attempt to put their principles into -»3' v^ -y- m uu m jg§vv mr f v4" • ir 94 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA practise. In the Steel Report of the Commission of the Inter- church World Movement they shovvcl what the effect on a great industry is of a policy of no-conference with the workers and of tlic systematic suppression of unionism. They showd that it pro- duced physical atrocities such as the twelve-hour day and the seven-day week and moral atrocities such as systematic industrial esi)ionage. But nothing came of the report, and their courage in preparing it had something to do with the unfortunate extinc- tion of the Interchurch World Movement itself. The question which the incident raises is a very serious one for the Christian churches in America. What can the Christian clergy do to protect the industrial principles, which"- they have solemnly adopted as part of Christian truth, from the bullish assaults of such groups of Inisiness men as the Employers' Association of Pittsburg? WELFARE WORK AND THE OPEN SHOP Mr. Gary, speaking for the United States Steel Corporation, emphasizes strongly the significance of the great amount of wel- fare work whicli he reports is being done by the corporation and its subsidiary bt)dies. At the headquarters office of the corpora- tion in New \'ork, a department of the administration is devoted to this work. Impressive literature has been issued showing the large sums of money expended, and illustrating the work l)y num- erous pictures. Probably any del)ater who desires to secure a copy of this literature will be served free of charge, if he will write to the proper officer, Mr. C. L. Close, 71 Broadway, New York City. A striking instance of a liberal policy in welfare work, which has been much written up in the press, is that of the Johnson-Endi- cott Shoe Manufacturing establishment at Binghamton, N. Y. Here an open shop is maintaind. and it has been often stated that the management has interposed no objection to the organization of trade unions among the employes. Efforts to organize effective trade unions are reported to be unsuccessful, however, and the reason given is that the company policy is so liberal in the matter of hours, wages, and general working conditions that the men feel that their maintenance of a labor union is useless effort and expense, A unique institution in American industry is the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. It is not an industry in the ordinary accepted use of the term, but it employs thousands of persons in the conduct of its l)usiness, and it operates in a field where there is vigorous competition. Features of its policy are clearly set forth in the following, quoted from a pamphlet of 20 pages publisht by the company. This will dou1)t!ess be sent free to any debater who tf I ' >1 THE OPEN SHOP 95 may send for a copy. Address the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 1 Madison Avenue, New York City. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs 15,000 workers in its agency and field force and 6.0'JO persons in the Home Office. All of these workers share the benefits of its Welfare Work. The result of this social laboratory experiment in the care that is given working people will, it is hoped, not only convince employers that Welfare Work is wortli-while, but will induce them to carry on similar work for their employes, many of whom are policy-holders in the Company. In order to increase the permanency of a working force, and to secure loyalty and interest on the part of employes, all modern concerns must make ur,e of the latest scientific information in the conservation of human material. At the outset, any prejudice against making changes in the daily routine and in the facilities of the w^orkshop must be scraps. This the Aletropolitan has done without hesitation w'hen the situation demanded it. The office hours of the Company are from 9 a. m. to 4:30 p. m., daily, and 9 a. m. to 1 p. m. Saturday. This enables em- ployes to use the transporation facilities of the city outside of rush hours ; they have time after ])usiness hours to attend to their private affairs ; they may live in the sul)urbs. A five-minute rest period in the morning at 11 a. m. and in the afternoon at 3 p. m. was found by experiment to l)e suc- cessful in lessening the strain on clerks of the last hours of work in the morning and afternoon periods. Therefore, it was instald generally and permanently. Windows are flung wide and clerks mcouraged to take active exercise. Continued efforts to improve ventilation and sanitation of the Home Office have secured . natural light from two sides tin most workrooms. Where artificial illumination is necessary, it is of the semi-direct variety. There is no dou1)t at all that if Welfare W^ork is to lie a suc- cess the l)est possible working conditions must be obtaind. So the Company's hint to employers is — scrap prejudice. • Of course. Welfare Work must be an addition to and not a sui)stitute for wages. liif forts made for employes for improving working conditions or helping the w'orker himself are not substi- tutes for a reasona1)le wage, for opportunities for development and advancement or the right of an employe to live his own life with- out undue interference. With other corporations in the country, the Company is mak- ing steady progress in its care of employes, realizing that an em- ployer is responsible for his employes beyond the payment of wages. The cost of Welfare Work for employes has proved to be an entirely justifiable expenditure, ])ringing results in increast efficiency, stability of the working force, and, most important of all, perhaps, in individual loyalty. The success of the efforts of the Company to improve the 41 ^1 <-J I ^ Mi I imm II ( " I i I 96 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA grade of employes and to retain their services is proved by the fact that, in spite of a rapid increase in the number of employes ^0 percent of the employes of the Home Office have been there tive years or more. These are instances among many in different parts of tlie country where welfare work and the maintenance of wage scales and all the working conditions, above the standards contended for by the labor unions, have insured, sometimes thru long periods, a contented corps of working people. Perhaps the most wide:y iu vertised mdustrial institution where liberal wage scales deterr.ine the contentment of the workers and forestall labor disturbances, is that of Henry Ford's large automobi:e manufacturing establishment in Detroit, with its rapidly extending subsidiary enterprises lo- cated elsewhere. To all arguments for the open shop based upon these in- stances, union labor leaders are accustomd to reply, first, that these high standards either of wages or of welfare wouM not appear in even the l.mited number of cases now known, if the labor unions had not for years past contended for high standards thruout the whole of American industry. The fact that the persistent effort of organized labor has been the determining factor in winnin- many important industrial reforms is conceded by all students of the problem. Many employers themselves concede that this is true Mr. Gary, of the United Steel Corporation, is among these, tho he IS very emphatic in his judgment that labor unions should no longer e.xist. In the pamphlet, "Principles and Policies of the United States Steel Corporation," from which quotations are taken elsewhere in our pamph'et, Mr. Gary says : Personally, I believe they (labor unions) have been justified in the long past, for I think the workmen were not always treated justly; that because ot their lack of experience or otherwise they were unable to protect themselves; and therefore needed the assis- tance ot outsiders in order to secure their ric/hts But whatever may have been the conditfons" of employment in the long past, and whatever may have been the results of union- ism, concernmg which there is at least much uncertainty, there is at present, in the opinion of the large majority of both employers and employes, no necessity for labor unions; and that no benefit ^aW leTdePs^ " "^''^ ^""^""^ **^ ^"^'"""^ ''''^^P' ^^^ ""^*^" To this reasoning the union labor leaders reply that such ad- missions and the still prevailing injustice in many fields of indus- trial life, are conclusive demonstration that labor unions have not only done much for the whole of American industry but their i f - . I- . / THE OPEN SHOP 97 W. C. A. believes in and endorses are as follows: "some of t789 further existence and work is essential to true industrial progress. Mr. Gary says that the open shop will now insure justice to labor. Union labor leaders insist that only the unionized shop can safeguard for the whole American industry the gains so far made, and insure reasonable progress in industry. In the second place, union labor leaders are much inclined to discount the value of "welfare work." Not only does it often, as they maintain, assume the form of patronage and charity, which is humiliating to self-respecting working people, but it leaves the interests of labor subject to the caprice of the management of the particular industry practicing this kind of patronage. They point to the Pullman Company as illustration, and a vindication of this warning. Years ago the Pullman Company was widely and gratuitously advertised in the press of the country as most ad- vanced in its standards of wages, and in the remarkable provisions made for labor in its specially built town of Pullman, 111. It is pointed out by the union leaders that that industry, under the despotic, though originally benevolent, control of the manage- ment and capital, has not kept pace with advancing standards in industry, but has rather retrograded, until some of the most acute labor disturbances of later years have centerd in that industry. The opening paragraph in a newspaper dispatch of June 21st, 1921, reads : IT .Tlje Pullman Company lost its open shop fight before the United States Railroad Labor Board today, when the Board up- held the contention of the union leaders that the company had not obeyd "the letter and spirit" of the Transportation act when it conferd with its employes in mass meeting. On general principles, labor leaders maintain, despotism or autocracy is objectionable. It cannot be redeemd by any degree of temporary benevolence on the part of the management. Its very nature is unworthy of and sacrifices the rights of the American in- dustrial freeman. How far our debate should be carrid into this field, the de- baters must themselves decide. As has been frequently remarkt, this question of the open shop opens up practically every major and most of the minor problems of American industry today. How far welfare work and the spontaneous concessions of capitalistic management can be accepted as properly safeguarding the interests of American labor is a question which at least union labor leaders believe enters as a question of prime and direct importance. Neither benevolence nor self-interest under open shop conditions 1.4 1 'r \ \k {-■ 98 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA in the past has deterd uncontrold industrial managers from grave injustice; there is no reason to believe that the open shop rc- establisht will serve any better in the future, say the unionists. * INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY AND THE OPEN SHOP Union labor leaders are not as a rule sympathetic to recent movements described under the general term, industrial demo- cracy. They believe in democracy, but they seem convinced that most of the experiments now being made in joint control of a particular industry by capital and labor, are really more or loss conscious subterfuges thru which capital and capitalistically con- trold industrial managers seek to loosen the hold which labor has gained thru the success of the trade union. These experiments are necessarily confined to particular in- dustrial establishments, and such portions of a given industry as are under a unified control. On the other hand, the trade union aims to include the working people of a whole trade or branch of in- •lustry in one organization. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi- neers, for example, is not confined to a particular railroad, or a single railroad system, but draws its members from any or all of the railroads of the country. Thus these programs of industrial democracy are weakening the trade unions, or the union leaders maintain that they are. And certainly they would naturally have that effect, in so far as it is the strength of the trade union to bargain for wages and hours i.nd working conditions for an entire industry through one deal or on a common basis. A program of industrial democracy brings lal)or into partnership with capital and the management on a basis agreed upon l)etween the working people of that particular establishment or unified system, without immediate regard to con- tracts which working people in a competitive establishment may have made with their capital and management. This, union leaders believe, is likely to prove a step backward in industrial organization, rather than a step forward. While most of these programs of industrial democracy claim to maintain neutrality toward labor unions, yet their success must destroy the trade unions, say the union leaders, and split American industry up into relatively small units, leaving industries pitted against each other in a wasteful and embitterd competition, a state of affairs from which the trade union has already done much to redeem the American system, and for which it ought to be preservd and en- couraged to do vastly more. In so far as the working people ot ■*-<•> ^ ^0 i THE OPEN SHOP 99 one establishment enter into close partnership with the capital and management of their own particular concern, in that degree will they lose their sense of fellowship with the great army of labor which the trade union has been so largely instrumental in mobiliz- mg in a class-conscious host. Thus the best for which the trade union has been contending will be lost, and there will prevail no common consciousness thruout the laboring class. Nor, of course, will they be able to act conccrtcdly in their common interests. To all this the promoter of industrial democracy replies that industrial democracy will make it unnecessary and undesirable for labor to maintain a class-consciousness or seek to mobilize it«: hosts as such. There will be nothing left for an army organized after that fashion to fight for. Fuller justice for all can be at- tamd thru this program, and the warfare which the trade union program has so frequently precipitated will be eliminated to the good of industry and of every element concernd in industry. At this point the union leader demands to be shown, or rather lie msists that abundant past experience and much fighting for the rights of labor as labor, convince him that these expectations are va;n, that these new programs will not insure for labor the just treatment promist, and that in the meantime the trade union sys- tem budded at such prodigious labor and thru the terrible sacrifice of .multitudes of working people will be wreckt. Thus in the end labor will be left, as formerly, with no defense against the arbi- trary measures of a conscienceless capitalistic management. Each debater will weigh for himself these arguments and coun- ter-arguments. It will help the debater of either side to study in some de- tail one or more of these plans for industrial democracy. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., will doubtless be accepted generally as a leader m this movement, though it has taken on numerous phases for whicli he is not a sponsor. Following the destructive strike in coal and iron fields of Colorado several years a-o he personally interested himself in the development of a plan for in- dustrial co-operation which has manifestly reduced friction, and has been widely accepted as a markt advance in industrial organi- sation Each debater can probably secure full information about this plan by applying (o Mr. Rockefeller's office at 26 Broadwav New York City. ^' Before the Chamber of Commerce of the United States in Atlantic City, N. J., December, 1918, Mr. Rockefeller made an 'ad- dress which attracted markt attention at the time, and which h,is \ r 100 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA been widely circulated since in pamphlet form. The title is "Rei)- resentation in Industry," and the introductory note says : This address is an apptal to employers. It is a plea to leaders of industry to meet the industrial prob- lems of reconstruction in a .spirit of co-operation, ju-l-c- fair play and brotherhood. It was deliverd to a convention of cmpioycrs just after the war ended. The address might have been deliverd without a clian 'c tD a convert. on of workingmen. "^ If the creed it embodies is deserving of acceptance by em- ployers. It shouid be equally acceptable to a'A those who particioate m industry. Common welfare, not class warfare, is its undcrV- mg thought. '•' In the l)ody of the text, this paragraph is printed with bold underscoring : We ouglu not to allow the occasional failure in th-- workin^r ot the pnnc-.ple of the organization of Labor to pr'^Midice u« agamst the prmciple itsc'f, for the principle is fundamenMlly sound" A paragraph, follovvmg shortly, adds: Labor unions have secured for Labor in general many ad- vantages m hours, wages and standards of working conditions \ large proportion of the workers of the country, however ar-^ out- side of these organizations, and unless somehow represcnte-l are not m a position to bargain collectively. Therefore, represc.itailon ot Labor to be adequate must be more comprelicnsive and ail-in- clusive than anything thus far attaind. A considerable section of the address is devut-d to an out- l.ne of the plan in recent operation among industrial c<.rpcra.i ms with which Air. Rockefeller is himself connected. Of this i)lan he says : It begins with the election of representatives in a single plant and is capable of indefinite development to meet the complex needs of any industry and of wide extension so as to include all in ins- iries. Lqualy applical)Ie in industries where union or non-uniem lal)or or both are employd, it seeks to provide full and fair rep- resentation to Labor, Capital and Management, taking cogni/rnce of the Commun.ty. Another organization which might properly fall under our present general heading is that of the great Bethlehem Steel Corpo^ ration, located at Bethlehem, Pa., of which Mr. Charles M. Schwab ts the head. This corporation, as indicated by quotations appear- ing elsewhere in this bulletin, has recently antagonized the labor unions to the extent of declining to deliver its product to builders in New York who employd union labor. The labor union leaders are resentful against this particular form of organization. It seems to have forestald successful trade union organization in the Beth- lehem shops. ^^ r.,'t Ik / 'h. % THE OPEN SHOP 101 Of the plan iMr. Schwab, in an address- before the Chamber of Commerce in New York, April 28th, 1921, stated: We have at Bethlehem a plan of collective bargaining l:n,>v.-i as Lmploycs; Rrcprescntation." It wcrk.>. And it worl s by '.c- tualy recognizing the rights of the men to negotiate with t'le management, and not engaging in needless discussion over words and phrases. The Bethlehem Steel Company has prepared literature setting forth the experience of the corporation with the plan, and any debater wish.ng to pursue the study can secure a copy by address- ing the Company at Bethlehem, or Mr. J. M. Larkin. assistant to the President. A publication of the Company, dated February, 1921, says : The Bethlehem plan, which has been in operation since October iyi«, we teel is no longer an experiment. The original by-laws made provis:on for amendments, and, as was anticipated, we are from time to time by agreement with our employes, making minor improvements and changes. The operation of the Plan to date nrnv'^rt \f ^.^ 1^ fundamentally correct, and in our judgment has proven it to be a success. It bears upon a point brought out elsewhere to reprint here a paragraph from the Plan which reads : . The representation of employes, as hereinafter provided shall But other plans now being developt in considerable numbers are far more thorogoing in their ''democracy" than either of these mentiond. iMr. Gary, as already quoted, believes in high wages and the expenditure of large sums in welfare work, but he believes that m the control of the industry the right of participation should be gaind thru stockholding. Apparently he is not prepared to reco- nize the right of labor as labor to participate in the management of industry. And in the plans briefly outlined above, labor's representa- tion is a matter of concession on the part of capital and the management, or seems to gain its warrant from that source. Other plans proceed upon what is stated to be the inherent right of labor to participate in the management. The attack of the union leaders against these "concessions" is at least consistent with their industrial philosophy, and seems to justify their conten- tion that a concession made by the grace of a despotic power may be withdrawn at the will of that power. This attack wouMnot seem to be so justified in the case of the plans which recognize the inherent right of labor to participate in the control of industry •^ — A ^^...^^ A i-^-irrr1- — ■ *^'^"^'^»" JS THE OPEN SHOP 102 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA 103 \ '\^ ■ M That right cannot be withdrawn at the will of capital or the man- agement. Probably the handiest source for any debater who wishes to pursue this study will be a little book publisht by Houghton Mifflin Company, entitled "The Industrial Republic," by Paul Litch- field, Vice-President and Factory Manager of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. The book not only outlines the plan of such a "republic," but sets forth in a very valuable essay the phil- osophy upon which it is based. The organization is closely modeld after our Federal Govern- ment, and aims to insure fundamental rights in the industrial en- terprise for its citizens, — the Industrians as they are known in the plan, — comparable to those rights which our federal constitution guarantees to the American citizen in his nation. The plan became effective in July of 1919 in the factories of the company at Akron, Ohio. We cannot quote here at length from the plan. It is in point to reprint these two paragraphs : A Goodyear Industrian must be 18 years of age, must be an American citizen, understand the English language, and have a six months' continuous service record in the Goodyear Factory im- mediately prior to election. Each Goodyear Industrian is en- titld to vote. There shall be no discrimination against any Goodyearite on account of membership or non-membership in any labor organiza- tion, or against any Representative or Senator for action taken l)y him in performance of his duties as out'ined in this Plan. Now there remains, in this connection, to point out the bearing of all this on our particular question. All of these plans declare for the open shop. It is not the open shop for which Mr. Gary and employers who share his industrial philosophy contend. Nor is it the open shop against which the union labor leaders direct their frontal and more vehement attacks. They do attack these plans more or less consistently, because, as they maintain, and as is perhaps demonstrated by experience, they weaken the trade unions. And these leaders justify their opposition on the ground that these plans have no such assurance of permanent justice to labor as the trade union affords. Our debate is likely to get hung up on the snag of definition. What is an open shop? There is danger that the two debating teams will find themselves discussing two different questions. The open shop of one side may not be the open shop of the other side at all. This is a peril which is to be encounterd in almost all de- bates. Try in advance to avoid a "fluke." Make your debate real. t^\ ^4 S' m and agree between yourselves, so far as practicable, upon your defi- nitions and the real question which you propose to debate. It is manifest that there is a vast difference between the open shop of Mr. Gary and the Steel Corporation, and the open shop of Mr. Litchfield and the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. Mr. Gompers might be disposed to oppose both and to prefer his union shop to either, but he would doubtless base his opposition in the one case on quite different grounds from that of the other. INTERCHURCH MOVEMENT AND THE STEEL STRIKE In the fall of 1919 there occurd, in the steel industry, one of the most momentous industrial disturbances of American his- tory. Its influence is still far from being spent, and the questions at issue are far from being settld. In a number of the plants of the United States Steel Cor;>ora- tion and its subsidiary organizations a large enough proportion of the workingmen quit work to tie up the plants and greatly to dis- turb the industry. Steel is so important in the Am:^rican industrial system that our whole economic order was more or less affected. Efforts, even of the President of the United States and the Federal Government, were unavailing to bring representatives of the opposing forces even into conference over the issuer involvd. Mr. Gary, backt by his stockholders in the Steel Corporac'on, de- clined even to meet Mr. Gompers and his associates in the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, declaring that adherence to a moral prin- ciple involvd forbade his doing so. The Interchurch World Movement, then in very ac:ivc opera- tion, appointed a Commission of Inquiry, which "went to tl.e stoc! workers with two main questions: A. Why did you strike (Or refuse to strike?) and B. What do you want?" Answers to the first question "were found to deal with things that existed — schedules of hours, wages, conditions, grievances, physical states and states of mind." Answers to the second question "were f.>und to deal with a method (hitherto non-existent in the steel industry), for changing" existing conditions; 'the strike leaders calld it collec- tive bargaining and the right to organization; the steel employers calld it the c'osed shop and labor autocracy." Debaters who decide to use the conditions in the steel industry, and the issue involvd in this great strike, as a determining argii- ment should secure a copy of the report of the Interchurch Corr - mission. It is authoritatively publi.sht in a volume of 277 [.age^ by Harcourt. Brace and Howe, of New \ork. Liberal -r'o- Ji ^ i04 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA lir quotations are made from this report in one or more of the vol- umes we have recommended that each debater shall secure, to enable you to discover the bearing of this incident upon our question. We shall not attempt here an exhaustive treatment of tijc matter, but you can see from the brief quotations just made that the open shop is central. The experience of the Steel Cor;3ora- tion in this strike is the event more than any other one which has precipitated the vigorous campaign for the open shop, which it and many other employers of labor are now pressing. The strike faild. At any rate, a large proportion of the working people who walkt out returnd to their positions on the old terms, or on those prescribed by the Corporation, and the managers declined to the last even to enter into conference with the labor leaders. How- ever, in a letter to the President of the United States, accompar.v- ing a copy of its report, the Interchurch Commission makes the prediction, "Unless vital changes are brought to pass, a ren.;v/al of the conflict in this industry seems inevitable." Whether the Commission believes tliat these "vital changes" involve merely the abandonment of such working conditions as the twelve-hour day (stated by Mr. Gary to include 69,000 working men), a seven - THE OPEN SHOP 105 f ^ / V V the affirmative or the negative point of view, is to study the who!e report. Conditions of labor were fixt by the Corporation, without rol- lective bargammg or any functioning means of conference; also without above-board means of learning how the decreed conditions aftected the workers. * ♦ ♦ Ultimate control of the plants was vested in a small group ot fmancicrs whose relation to the producing force was remote * * * Approximately one-half the employes were subjected to the twelve-hour day. Approximately one-half of these in turn were subjected to the seven-day week. Much less than one-quarter had a work.ng day of less than ten hours (sixty-hour week). 4c * 3|C The abritrary control of the Steel Corporation extended outside the plants, affectmg the workers as citizens and the social insti- tut ons in the communities. The steel industry was under the domination of a policy whose a:m was to keep out the labor unions. In pursuit of this policy, blacklists were used, workmen were dischargd for union affilia- tion, "under-covcr men" and "labor detectives" were employd and efiorts were made to influence the local press, pulpit and police author. t'cs. * * * The organizing campaign of the workers and the strike were for the purpose of forcing a conference in an industry where no means of conference existed; this specific conference to set up trade union collective bargaining, particu'arly to abolish the twelve- hour day and arbitrary methods of handling employes. No .nterpretation of the movement as a plot or conspiracy fits the facts; that is, it was a mass movement, in which leadership became of secondary importance. Charges of Bolshevism or of industrial radicalism in the con- duct of the strike were without foundation. The chief cause of the defeat of the strike was the size of the Steel Corporation, together with the strength of its active opposition and the support accorded it by employers gencralV l)y governmental agencies and by organs of public opinion. Causes of defeat, second in importance only to the fight waged by the Steel Corporation, lay in the organization and leader- ship, not so murh of the strike itself, as of the American labor movement. ANSWERS TO THE STEEL STRIKE REPORT OF THE INTERCHURCH COMMISSION These were numerous and some of them bitter in the ex- treme. None was anything like so extended and circumstantial as was the report itself. How much the criticism of this "In- Mi A i-U L^i. ' m^jff^ ^ A THE OPEN SHOP 107 06 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA ■4 quir>" had to do with the co!hpse of the Intcrchurcli Movement, which appointed the Commission, is a question upon wliich there will probably always he sharp difference of opinion, lioth friends and foes of the Movement have maintaind that it had much to do with its failure. Numerous employers and their organs of publicity condemnd the Movement for presuming to carry the Church "out of its sphere," and scoft at the alleged ignorance of "a lunch of preachers and ex-preachers" who had thus in- varied tile field of economics and business administration. Debaters who care to pursue this line of study can collect large numbers of such criticisms. But they are scatterd, and were confined to gcnera'itics or to more or less minute particulars in the report. No comprehensive and detaild reply seems to have been attempted by an agency recognized as having the degree of independence and lack of self-interest which the Interchurch Com- mi^siun could claim. .'\mong the replies which the Steel Corporation apparently esteems to be most effective are utterances of Rev. E. Victor Bige low, Andover, Mass. His early attitude had been such as to lead to his appointment to sustain the affirmative of the question, "Was the Interchurch Commission unfair in its report on the Steel Strike?" This debate was arranged by the Worcester (Mass.) Congregational Club. The negative was sustained by a member of the Commission. Mr. Bigelow's discussion was printed in the Chamber of Commerce and State Journal, and has been published by C. F. Miller, Scranton, Pa. Copies are to be had at the offices of the Steel Corporation. Brief and scattered excerpts from Mr. Bigelow's charges of unfairness against the Report, especially as they touch upon our question, are the following: In the Steel Corporation the difference bctne.n a successful year and a fa"lure. often is located within the last ten cents of every dollar's worth of business. They haven't much leeway, and it takes careful watching to make the balance fall on the right side. No wonder they dislike the meddling of a labor union. Too many cooks spoil the broth. The unfairness of the Interchurch Report is conspicuous at this point; for it assumes, wholly without proof, that the imper- fections and infelicities of Mr. Gary's management would be elimi- nated by collective bargaining with his employes ; whereas he might be muddled by the most ideal collective bargaining. But the only kind of collective bargaining offerd in the Steel Strike was that of the American Federation of Labor; which in- cluded in its twelve demands, the reinstatement of every trouble- maker who had been discharged, with pay for all his idle time ; V the establishment of the eight-hour day, which meant an entire revision of schedules and additional wages of one hundred millions of doliars; the check-off system of union dues whereby the Corporation should be the collecting agent for the la1)or iinions ; promotion 1)y union rules, rather than by individual merit; the abolition of physical examination, so that no one could tell what contagious disease or weakness might cause a fatal accident or un- fit a man for real service. Bear in mind that these particular bargains with enormous dangers both to person and to property, were the only kind offerd by the A. V. of L. * * ♦ » T am deeply convinct that the Interchurch Commission is wholly wrong in assuming that the best cure of grievances can come thru col'-ective bargaining. The best adjustments are al- ways achievd by the ingenious contrivance of the controlling man- agement to secure a higher and finer success in the business. Such fine examples of industrial co-operation as are obtaind in the Colorado Fuel and Iron Co., the International Harvester, the Endicott-Johnson Co. and hundreds more such faniou> modern samples of happy co-operation, are not achievd l)y collective bar- ga"ning ; lait are conceivd and originated by the managers of the property and offerd to the workers either individually or in groups; and whi'e the help of the workers and their advice is h.onestly sought, the whole scheme of betterment emanates from the con- trolling center of the l)usincss and is for the purpose of making the business successful to a still greater degree. * « * The same method of unfair shifting of a phrase is met in the chapter on Social Consequences of Arbitrary Control. Here is where they affirm that the Corporation discharged men freely on account of "unionism." There is a perfectly innocent kind of unionism and millions of men in our land feel the substantial value of labor unions for the purpose of binding workmen together in the defense of their interests. To deny men employment or to discharge them from employment l)ecause they belong to unions is abhorrent to our general American sentiment, and is denounced by the Steel Corpo- ration itself. How then does the Report accuse the Corporation of discharging workmen for unionism? It is done by a shift of unionism from its innocent meaning into a unionism that is militant and vicious. For many years thousands of steel workers have been members of labor unions without prejudice against them; b,ut when the Strike was being prepared every un"onist was summond to prepare for a stiff battle against the Corporation. Those who yielded to the incitement, whether for booty or for glory, became soldiers in a campaign to break down the well-known policy of the Corporation, that of running its own business. * * * Now in case of such discharge it was perfectly natural for an employe to say he was discharged for unionism. He wouldn't \ 108 THE UxXIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA say pugnacious unionism or malevolent unionism, even when the Corporation knew it to be such; but the unfairness of the Report, rests in assuming that union ism was always innocent and in com- demning the Corporation for knowing the contrary. * * * The Corporation's policy of running its own business upon sound principles of industry without yie'ding to the popular clamor for new experiments in the line of Industrial Democracy, brought it into sharp contrast with our Government's policies during the war and immediately after. When our Government past the Adamson law and the Clayton Act and did many other startling in- novations at the behest of the labor union leaders of our country, and when our neighbor, the Government of Great Britain under st:ll greater pressure of labor unionism actually made unionism a Government "establishment" just as they make the church an estab- kshmtnt, all this immense prestige and pressure against tlie Ameri- can principles of freedom in industry, was centerd in the great Steel Strike against the U. S. Steel Corporation. But in spite of it all the Corporation stood fast and when its sturdy resistance is condemnd by our Interchurch Commission I can say only this "Foruivc them; for thty know not what they do!" LATER— ANOTHER CRITICISM On July 11, 1921, there was releast to the public press another "Review" of the Interchurch Report on the Steel Strike. The New York World states that it is a volume of 108 pages, and believes that copies can be secured thru the offices of the United States Steel Corporation, 71 Broadway, New York City. THE KANSAS INDUSTRIAL COURT AND THE OPEN SHOP Our bulletin does not undertake to show the bearing of the new industrial court in Kansas upon the general question of the open shop in American industry. Perhaps it will later be found to affect the industrial situation profoundly, but in the estimation of students of industrial problems, especially those outside of the state of Kansas, and detacht in their relation to the move, this plan is still in the experimental stage. The experiment is being watcht with keen interest. Governor Allen is the sponsor for the idea, and his personal and official influence got the measure incorporated in the Kansas state law. He has explaind the plan in many public addresses within and without the state, has written of it in considerable vol- ume, and has presented the matter comprehensiveV in a book en- titled, "The Party of the Third Part." This third party is the public. The plan aims to put ' the ■1 ,, i •I <4 THE OPEN SHOP 109 public, thru governmental agencies, in a position where it can and will assume responsibility for dispensing justice even-handedly in industry, and will promptly adjudicate differences which may arise between capital and labor. Certain corporations and employers are thought to be antago- nistic to this plan. Labor leaders, especially those at the head of the organized miners of the state, have resisted it vigorously. The executive head of this miners' organization has, as this is written, just now been convicted in the courts of the state of violation of this law because he calld a strike among the miners recently, and has been sentenced to the payment of a fine and a term of im- prisonment. The case is appeald and may be in the courts, state and federal, for some time. In the meanwhile the plan is gaining increasingly strong sup- port from persons in the ranks of organized labor as well as from the general pul)lic. It is thought that the present prevalent un- employment will put the plan to the severest test it has yet experi- enct. As this is written, the latest reports show that 31 cases have been hand'd by the new industrial court, 29 of which have been on an appeal from the labor side of the industrial controversy. Of 18 cases where wage increase was at issue and decision has been reacht, 15 have resulted in an increase. The court aims to be im- partial, and has power to determine in any case appeald to it whether wages or working conditions in any particular industry are just or maintaind at a standard which will serve best the public interest. The kind of "shop" this plan will guarantee may be open or it may be highly unionized. The ultimate bearing upon the con- troversy with which our debate is dealing does not yet appear. It is more likely to introduce a "tertium quid" which is briefly discussed in the closing section of our pamphlet. How much material for argument either side may gain from this move in Kansas our debaters must themselves decide. Either side will be rewarded by study of the Kansas Plan. A DEFINITION AND A WARNING The Bulletin of the National Manufacturers' Association for June 3rd, 1921, reprints an editorial from the NEW YORK MAIL of March 15th, in comment upon the report of the Industrial Relations Committee of the Merchants' Association of New York ■^ u< THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA Ci:y. It invites to what the Bulletin suggests should he "a luii.ii look ahead." The report gives a c'ear, incontrovertible statement of what constitutes the genuine "open shop." It is not the shop of those Itourhon cmp'o}vrs who close their doors to all union lai)or, nor the shop of the unions which deny any one not a nicinl)cr of them the right to work. It is a shop Vvhere union and non-union men may work side liy side with all their rights, social, economic and political, fu^ly safe-guarded. And it must prevail. But v.ith it there m.ust go some scheme of employe representation that will restore int'mate contact between management and workers. Such reprcsvntatii n will give the latter a desirable responsll)i];ty for inert ast production and cffiMcncy. Because of present conditions the future is largely in the hands nf the employers. If they should misuse their chance, as the labor forces did during the emergency of war, they would incur public disapproval as thoroly as labor did. It will pay them to look a long way ahead so that the working people of th.s country who arc esfentially apost'cs of enlitihtend individualism, may not be driven into the arm.s of those who advocate the socialism of industry. MR. DOOLEY'S REMARKS ON THE OPEN SHOP Rveryl)ocy knows Mr. Dooley. He has m.ade remarks upon pretty nearly every question and important event in recent Ameri- can h'story. He has spoktn at length to his friend Hennessey on the industr'al situation, and this is the gist of what he ha> to say about the open shop: "'What's a'l this tluii's in the papers a'vjut the open sliop?' askt Mr. Hennessey. •"Why. don't yc kn..v. ?' said Mr. Doohy. 'Really. I'm sur- prized at yer ignoraiice. H'nnissey. What is th' open shop? Sure. 'tis where they kape the dors open to accomr.iodate th' constant stream av' min comin' in t' take jobs cheaper than th' m'n what has th' jobs. 'Tis Ike this. Hinnisey: Suppose wan av these frec- I)orn citirtrs is ucrkin' in an open shop f'r th' princely wages av wan large iron dollar a day av tin liour. Along comes anither son av gun and he scz t' th' lioss,, "Oi think Oi could handle th' job nice'y f'r ninety c'nts." "Sure." sez th' bos"^, an th' wan dollar man gets out into th' crool woruld t' exercise hiz inalienable roights as a freeborn Anxrican citizen an' scab on some other poor devil. \n so it goes on, Hinnissey. An' who gits th' benefit? Thrue, it .'a\es tir boss money, 1 ut he don't care no more i'r money thin he does f'r his right ey. "It's all princple wid him. He hates t' sec men robbed av their independence. They must have their independence, regard- less av anything else.' "'But,' said Mr. Hennessey, 'these op(n-shop min yc menshun say they are f'r unions iv pre^perly conducted.' " 'Sure,' said Mr. Dooley, 'iv properly conducted. An' there we are: An' how would they have thim conducted? No strikes. i ♦ THE OPEN SHOP 111 no rules, no contracts, no scales, hardly iny wages, an' dam few mimlKrs. UNCLASSIFIED QUOTATIONS At the "American Idea Convention," Chicago, January, 1921 : .\n employer: "It is unpopular to say that 1 do not believe in the open shop, but 1 confess I do not know what the open shop means. To my mind it is a good deal of a question of non-union shop or unionized shop, and I hate to be a hypocrite under a resolution or anything else, or to vote or declare in favor of open shop when my own policy is not to carry that out, but to hit the head of the radical in my shop whenever he puts it up." From the Minnesota Banker : "The closed shop is zealously fought for by the radical wing of labor organization. The open shop can be the most readily brought about by the elimina- tion of this element as a power in organized labor. * * * The open shop argument must be addrest, therefore, to the better sense and judgment of the conservative in organized labor. * * * Where the radical element is too strongly in- trcncht, there is, of course, but one final thing to do, and that is to beat them by force. They must be lockt out and lickt until •the conservatives see the light. * * * j\^{^ harsher method, however, should not be employd until all other plans have faild." From the Nation, April 13th, 1921 : "In brief, the open shop drive is for the destruction of unionism through elimination of its most vital weapon, collective bargaining. ♦ * ♦ \Yq have come, therefore, to a turning point in industrial policy. If the people of America want to deprive the wage earner of the small .sha»-e in the control of industry — and thus of his own life — that he has obtaind thru organization, they have that right ; but tiiey ought to know that they are doing it. * * * If they want the term "American Plan" to become synonymous with economic czarism, they have that right; but they ought to stop talking about the closed or the open shop, and, facing realities, speak in stead of the union or the anti-union shop. They ought to call a spade a spade, a club a club, a knave a knave. They ought to know that they are getting not an open shop, openly arrivd at. but an anti-union shop secretly attaind." William Leavitt Stoddard, in Industrial Management, June. 1921 : "At last reports some 540 employers' organizations in nearly all the stages were actively promoting open shop advertising and propaganda; some of the largest groups of organized manu- facturers * * * and many state associations of manufacturers, «l mA j^ % 112 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and a majority of the local chambers of commerce are advocating the open shop ; there are said to be, further, nearly 500 purely open shop associa- tions." Same: "This brings us to the strongest portion of the case for the open shop, namely, the statement of employers that any shop other than the open shop means the closed union shop, that is, a shop in which non-union employes may not work." Same: "It would be idle to deny that the open shop move- ment is directed against the unions. It is. It is directed, how- ever, not against their existence, but against their demand that they shall be allowd to represent all labor. All labor in the United States is far from being organized. * * * The open shop does not forbid co'lective agreements ; ♦ * * jhe open shop appears to be a perfectly fair and even-handed proposal. The fact that well over 85 percent of American industry is run on open shop principles would seem to indicate that there is plenty of room in this country for working out the great experiment of peace between capital and labor without declaring for the closed union shop till the trade unions are numerous enough to make such a policy the only way of dealing with employes. That time is remote." (Read this entire article in June number of Industrial Man- agement.) From a Bil'board advocating the open shop, Tacoma, Wash- ington : "Do not associate with this name an attempt to disguise under a c'.oak of patriotism a deeper scheme of capitalistic domina- tion or an organized effort to destroy the rights and privileges of the workingman. The meaning of the name is as simple as the name itself. It means that the basic right given to every man under the consttution of the United States will be the fun- damental rule guiding the treatment and rights of the worker employd by the company operating under the plan." Ralph E. Fox, Industrial Management, January, 1921 : "Open shops wiijl not become predominant ifnle^ss associations which sponsor them are properly motivated. Therefore every open shop association should, before determining upon the means to be used, be absolutely positive as to its motives as an association ; and every individual member of it must likewise be absolutely positive of his motives as an individual employer and as a part of the association as such. To reiterate: open shops are expressions of motives, and, like motives, are but means to ends, and meritorio-is ij ..1 • THE OPEN SHOP 113 according to the ends to which they lead." Ernest G. Draper, President, American Creosoling Company, in the Weekly Review, January 12th, 1921 : "It is no crime to oppose organized labor, provided the methods used are legitimate. It may seem a wise course to many to oppose it and to fight 'ts growth with all the might that can be musterd. Some of us will conceive such a course as a terrible mistake. * * * This is a free country, however, and our opinions are not sacrosanct iu^t because they are our own. But do not let us permit any man or any group of men to cloud the issue. If there is to be a f'ght. let it be a fair fight with fair weapons. Otherwise it i^ an underhand, dirty fight, vicious to the last degree, and ultimalely bound to react with disastrous effect upon a*l employers, whether they are responsible for it or not." From Bulletin of Industrial Information Service. Inc. Bos- ton, Mass., June 3, 1920: "A tendency either toward the clo'^ed union shop or toward the closed non-union shop is p'-esent ii. every open shop," From resolutions adopted at the 16th annual meeting of rhe Associated Employers of Indianapolis, Inc. : "Resolved, That the open shop is the only fair basis of industrial relationships for the public at large, for employer and for employe. The principle of the open shop guarantees to all citizens the free and unrestricted exercise of their right to work when, where, and as their in- dividual interests may dictate or require. The door of equal opportunity is thus opened to all citizens who earn a livng by hand or brain, and they are not subject to arbitrary decisions of labor union agitators, or to false or uneconomic rules of conduct." A writer in the Babson Institute, Boston. Mass. ; "One of the most serious defects in the union movement today is the unwill- ingness to incorporate or in some other way assume moral and financial responsibility for its acts. * * ♦ Public sentiment is more and more crystaPizing in the idea of the reasonableness of assuming responsibility when performing acts, and it is difficult to see how American labor can stand again,st such a principle very much longer. A clearing up of this matter, the assumption by labor organizations of such responsibilities, the right to sue and be sued, would go far toward bringing capital and labor upon common ground." From "Industrial Facts," Kirby Page: "The theory of the employers' open shop is that no discrimination shall be made against any man because of membership or non-membership in a I Bfii H m b ;i 14 THE UNIVERSITY .OF OKLAHOMA '.abor iiniDii As a matter of fact, however, some cmp'oycrs are using tru' open shop as a weapon against union men and are scek- Wi'^. usually stcrct'y. to destroy the power of labor unions." Same: "in theory many employers grant the right of men t') organize in unions, in practice many of these men are seeking vigorously to make the unions weak and ineffective. The attitude uf many employers is we'.l described by Ray Stannard Baker: '\'es, we believe in unionism, but damn the unions.'" I'x-Pres'dent Taft, quoted in a newspaper interview: "It i-^ tJK* custom of Bourbon employers engaged in fighting la])or unionism to the dtath to call a closed non-union shop an open shop. and to call the movement to kill unionism an open shop move- ment. This is a deceitful misuse of the term." C<.nimittee «>n Industrial Relations, Merchants' Association <>t Xcw \''>rk: Vour committee deplores the dispositi<»n on the j>art 'if M»nie employers who are using the term 'open shoii' t<; work toward a condition of the closed non-union shop In dis- criminating against union men. It likewise regrets that the opera- tion of the closed union shop frecjucntly rcsu'.ts in restriction of (»utput and limitation of avadable labor supply." National Catholic Welfare Council: "The 'open shop' drive masks under such names as 'The American Plan' and hides be- hind the pretense of American freedom. Vet its real purpose is to destroy all effective labor unions, and thus subject the working {»ev)p'e to the complete domination of the employers." Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America : " * * * a campaign is being conducted for the open shop policy — the so-calld American Plan of Employment. These terms are now being freejuently used to designate establishments that are defi- nitely anti-union. Obviously a shop of this kind is not an open shop but a closed shop — closed against members of labor unions." Louis D. Brandeis, now Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court : "To suggest that labor unions can be effective if organized on less than a national scale seems to ignore entirely the facts and trend of present-day American business." United States Senate Commission on Steel Strike : "The Com- mittee is agreed that the principle of collective bargaining is a right of men working in industry." Debaters on both sides may wish to think over such questions as these : Is not the principle of the open shop the principle of free trade in commerce? How far can employers go in insisting A I ■•«« ■•' t^s .1 THE OPEN SHOP 115 upon th.e application of the principle in one field when tiiey deny it in the other? How far elo employers practise the principle of the open shop in their relations with each other? Do they maintain the free and unrestricted right of each industrial management to control its own affairs? Is the peril that the labor market shall be cornerd and .li>nvi- natcd ])y ambitious labor leaders any more real than tliat i)arri- cular industrial managers sha'l gain and use an artificial pf.wer in their field? If natural laws safeguard society against tlu- hitter. what hinders their rendering the same service against la^. .r domi- nation? Is it not a fact that 100 percent union la^or is the amliit^on of every labor union? If and when this end is achieve!, will not the union shop control that industry as arbitrarily and as irre- sponsibly as an unrestricted capitalistic management control ccr- tan industrial establishments now? BRIEF DIGESTS Social antagonisms may be due to defective organization i>f society rather than to the faults of the antagonists. Every question must ultimately be settled by the interests of society as a whole. Labor unions defend the flat wage rate not because it i-^ just. fair, or expedient, but to prevent dissention among themsches. With the negative the problem of unemployment is the chief difficulty, — the chief terror. The affirmative are absolutely silent about this and yet claim to be fully and fairly debating tlie (jucs- tion. La])or claims that if it had the public at its mercy it would never abuse such power. When were there ever a class of lui- man beings who could be trusted with such power? The right of labor to bargain collectively is universally ad- mitted. But how is collective bargaining possiltk \vi:lunt tli!- closed shop? W^hat has labor to bargain with? The Open and the Closed Shop are not neces.sarily oit]M.sit«v The closed shop is closed to all but members of labor unions. An open shop is usually open to all but sometimes not to union men. Unless it is open to all it is of course not open. The affirmative assume that a'l employers are honest and fair with their employes. This is practically never the case. Those > fciTMl j. 116 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA who would be fair have to compete with those who are not ancf must do substantially the same things. It is not expected or intended that Labor will always submit to present rules and practises which are forced upon it by em- ployers. Labor only fights back in self defense. The ultimate responsibility for pubHc injury rests upon those who oppress labor. Why should laborer A, who can do more and better work than laborer B, be wi'.ling to work for the same wages? It is clearly a sacrifice for A, but he does it for the sake of the cause. The spirit is very different from that of the average employer. That the efficient, industrious, skillful laborer should be paid what he actually earns ; and that the public should not be com- peld to pay the same wages to a careless, incompetent laborer is as clear as anything can be. The flat wage rate is an incubus on the unions. The affirmative fairly sobs with sympathy for the meml)crs of the union who they say are slaves, betrayd and misdirected by their leaders. But all the officials of unions are elected by the entire membership who can retire them at any time. Some tragedies have their comic side. We can only judge the closed shop by what it aims at, what it would do if it could. It is a patent fact, absolutely undeniable, that the closed shop interferes with the management, which must do as the employes say or quit business. The utter ioVy and futility of this is shown by the fact that average laborers arc not competent to manage the business; they would look after their own selfish interests, not that of the business. It is amusing how the opponents of the closed shop complain so bitterly of its tyranny to the poor misguided workmen. Even if it were tyrannical it might be less so than an unrestricted em- ployer. Employers sometimes boast that they invariably dismiss an employe who asks for an increase of wages. Such a request ^^ deemd a reflection on the employer's fairness. No employer is pleased with such requests. If the opponents of the closed shop are really sincere in the belief that it entails so many intolerable abuses, why don't they oppose and seek to remedy such abuses instead of making them a pretext for trying to destroy the only defense labor has that has ever accomplisht anything worth while. The negative labor under a great difficulty in that all the in- terests and investments of an ordinary member of a union are 1 1 i ") THE OPEN SHOP 117 temporary, often extremely so, while the employer's interests— his investments in buildings, machinery, reputation of his busi- ness are permanent in their nature; he cannot move away. The laborer has nothing of this kind to lose. The parties to such "col- lective bargaining" are so grossly unequal in their relations to the work that it can hardly be calld bargaining at all. The closed shop must ultimately destroy itself for under it the business is controld almost entirely by the workmen. Of course reasonable men will not invest their savings in a business they cannot control. Russia is furnishing us an illustration of how the control of the business by the workmen turns out. Workmen sel- dom appreciate the value of good management and often antago- nize it. It is evident that the closed shop facilitates strikes. If only half of the employes in a shop were union labor a strike by them would be futile. The closed shop would be the only way that labor could get unanimity. No one can deny that the labor unions have grossly abused the power the closed shop gives them. They have struck for all sorts of frivolous reasons. They have even struck to settle dis- putes between two labor unions, thereliy punishing their employers and the public for what they had no part whatever in. "Sympa- thetic" strikes are very common where employes punish their em- ployers because some other employer docs not do to suit them. It is this that compels employers to unite. How does labor bargain? If the employer refuses to pay what the laborer demands, what can the laborer do but quit, i. e. strike? This is a very serious matter; he does not know where he can get work again. If he strikes alone he merely loses his job. One man bargaining alone has no show whatever ; the employer has all the advantage. A closed shop is merely a place where men re- fuse to work with traitors to their fellow workmen. In a closed shop the single workman does not strike alone; but in his griev- ance he must get the support of a majority of his fellows. A labor union is nothing in the world but an organization to facilitate "collective bargaining." The justice and expediency of collective bargaining are no longer debatable; even the affirmative profess to approve it, but are opposed to any method of making it effective. Employers often demand that they should deal with their own men directly, and object to "walking delegates." The employer can command the best argumentative ability that money can get. ^s^:^.^ ' V m^' i 118 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA i: It! and is himself much more skilful and better informd than the em- p'-oye. The employe is no match for him. The union employs the best talent it can to represent it in the debate with the employer. The employer does exactly the same thing when he goes into court. The average laborer is no match for the employer or his a.ocnt in argument; their bargaining cannot be on equal terms. The union gives the labortr also an agent more skilful than himself. The compary has representatives; if they prove unsatisfactory they are dismist. Why should nr)t the employe have exactly tlif same privilege? Advocates of the open shop have mu'h to say a'sout "freedom of contract." There may be legal freedom ]mt never ecur.omic freedom. The sole aim of the labor union is to defend laborers who are being wrongd as to wages and conditions of labor. When a man's family is starving he will sign any contract that will give them bread. The laborer, standing alone, is always more or less between the alternatives, "Work or Starve." This is the "free- dom of contract" the affirm.ative advocate! "The open shop policy guarantees to every laborer the right to work when, where, and for what they please." It would be hard to state a more flagrant untruth. It is only very partially true in the case of the few workmen who can afford to drop an unsat:>fact(-ry jo!) with no other in sight; who have .sufficient sur- plus to siij.;..irt their families and pay raiKvay fares and hotel b.lls Willie seeking: a new jo'). The tcrrllile cost and risk of un- cn^ployme rt nnist always restrain the workman in l;ar-ain:n- witli his employer. The- war c.r.dlt:. rs and favor of President Wilson gave the uniejns a gr.at opportunity which they faild to improve. They profiteerd Uj the limit. They made and enforced all sorts of out- rageous ru'es. One ^nborer m.ade a man pay him $2.t)0 for aliout 15 minutes work, and daimd that the union would fine $25 if he didn't. They had a rule that no time less than an hour should ])e counted. The closed shop gives the union a power which it has abused, and it can give no guaranty that it wndd not always abuse it. How can a union exist without the- closed shop? The affir- mative is silent on this. That the closed shop involves some wrongs might be admitted; but they are far more than compen- sated for by the benefit the unions are to the laborers and to society. The affirmative profess to believe in collective bargainln r THE OPEN SHOP 119 /- i ^ . / while opposing the closed shop which only makes it possible. This utterly vitiates all their reasoning. Why don't the affirmative come out squarely and admit that they wish things fixt so the laborer will have to take whatever pit- tance the employer sees fit to offer. Is it labor's fault that the maintenance of the closed shop is its only defense against unjust wages. Those in power have taken away every other defense and now are trying to take away this. Labor would gladly use another weapon if it had it. The fundamental trouble with the whole problem of the relations of Capital to Labor is that all business is conducted primarily for profits and only incidentally for service. Suc- cess in business is measured solely by profits; no "great" busi- ness man is poor. In all the professions we have the opposite. No one could be a "great" physician unless he had cured pa- tients, how much wealth he had accumulated is irrelevant. A "great" lawyer has won cases,— has served his clients. A "great" scientist or inventor gets fame by useful discoveries. And so with all the professions,— teacher, preacher, engineer, scholar, artist, musician, artisan, laborer,— greatness or success is meas- ured by service. But there are few successful business "men who have rendered anything like an equivalent to society for the wealth they have accumulated; many deny any obligation to do so. Business will not submit to having its profits regulated, or even known by the public. It claims the right to "charge all the traffic- will bear". A large part of profits come from laborers and so is practically a rebate from wages paid. It is true that many business men respect the Rotarian motto, "He profits most who serves best", and that profits are often a meager wage, 3'et the fact remains that the common business motive is pro- fits instead of service. Just so far as this is true the argument of the affirmative is vitiated. The employer cannot demand that the laborer shall respect the public interest unless he does so himself. And he often forgets this when he is making prices for the public to pay. BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION This is not a one-sided question. It is not an academic question. Theories might settle the business in short order. But all debaters should realize the intensely practical character i r I I' l1 120 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA of the issue. While they compel one another to stand firmly upon principles, yet each side must remember that principles must be applied ro be worth anything even as principles. How- ever beautiful they may appear in theory, they are not sound unless they can be made to work. Both Sides Weak The weakness of both sides is that heat and passion and prejudice and class interests have been and are being employd to wm partisan ends. Two parties in our industrial scheme are at war. Some of the leaders, indeed, maintain that the only way to settle the bus:ness is to turn each party loose and let them fight it out to the finish. One or the other is bound to have its way, and the question will never be settld to stay settld until one or the other is lickt, so thoroly lickt that both sides know full well just what has happend to them. Tho those who are prepard to take this extreme stand are few, the inevitableness of the conflict seems not less conclusive to many others. It would be a fine thing if some powerful um- pire mght step in, make both sides be good, and thus end the conflict. But who and where is the umpire? The public! How is the public to act? How is it even to make up its mind with sufficient clearness to serve as required? Let the public act through the Government. But the gov- ernmental agencies are themselves pulld and hauld now this way, now that. Each side accuses them of favoritism toward their opponents. And Government is not strong enough, or far enough removd from these opposing influences, to follow a consistent course. The machinery of government is one of the bggest stakes for which the contestants on either side strive. We have a beautiful theory that the public is an independent third party in the industrial conflict, and that the whole business might be straightend out if this third party would only step in and tell each of the fighters just where he gets on and where he gets off. But the disconcerting fact is that in the case of a ques- tion of universal significance like this, the public as an indepen- dent and selfdetermining unit disappears. Nobody can find it. We are all lined up on one side or the other. If we are not directly classified as either employers or employes, our situation identifies us so closely with one side or the other that rarely can we control our sympathies judicially. ■m m Sv / ^ fc> V I i A THE OPEN SHOP 121 Who Says It? To many of us it means all the difference in the world who makes a given statement bearing on a question like this. Does Mr. Gompers say it? Then it is law and gospel to certain partisans on his side, and by the same token it is devlish lie in the estimation of partisans who do not like his side and his crowd. Does Judge Gary say it? Then, what wisdom and statesmanship! Or, some more bawling of the chief spokes- man of the reactionary crowd! You have heard of the small boy who fell into a contro- versy with his play-fellow, and who clincht his argument by the assurance that his father said so and so was true. His opponent was presumptuous enough to discount the statement in spite of that fact. Then the youngster's reason and passion reacht their highest flight is the declaration that "Whatever my papa says is so, even it 'taint so!" The merits of this question have been greatly overshadowd by appeals to authority. Because Mr. Gompers has been for forty years the undisputed leader of the millions of organized labor in the United States, his is esteemd by many to be the final word on a subject like this. Or, because Judge Gary has been for twenty years the head of the largest industrial institu- tion of the land, and is lookt up to by hosts of aspiring young business men as the paragon of all which "success" points to, his word is for others not less conclusive. Perhaps the debaters on both sides will be inclined to work this argument to the limit, to quote authorities as the final word. Both will, however, find that the limit is soon reacht. This is a question in which all of us are interested, and neither the op- posing debaters, nor the judges, nor the audience attending our debates, will be finally convinct by emphatic words quoted from men of high-sounding names. Both Sides Strong The strength of each side is its final appeal to the good of the public. To be sure, each believes that the good of the public demands the triumph of his party and the vindication of his contention. But each has again and again yielded to and ardently declard the principle that the public good should pre- vail. In short, neither blatant autocracy nor class-mad Bloshe- I < • [ mmm m mi - jT 'l UL ^ n . •^'y .- 122 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA THE OPEN SHOP vism guides the parties to the controversy. In the heat of the contest there has been much flinging of charges to one effect or the other. But debaters who resort to such petty devices will do themselves little credit. American labor is not gone Bolshe- vistic. No authoritative leader proposes the carrying of the contest to a point where his class shall absolutely and violently dominate. On the contrary part, no responsible employer as- pires to emulate the example of theHapsburgs and Hohenzoll- erns. Many an employer practices and justifies an autocracy which is very distasteful and seems reprehensible to the average American citizen. Many a labor leader appeals to class pre- judice in the effort to rally working people to his cause, which unimpassiond citizens must greatly deplore. But feverish at- tempts to make it appear that either absolute industrial auto- cracy or Bolshevistic communism is about to be "put over" on the American people, is clap-trap which all our debaters should out of self-respect avoid. The appeal of both sides to patriotism, and their manifest loyalty to American ideals and American institutions, should be accepted. It is quite the privilege of either side to maintain that its program will sustain those institutions best and tend most directly to realize those ideals. But for either to charge the other with malicious and determind efforts to wreck our American society is unworthy of them and should be rebuked by those to whom such appeals are addrest. It is true that certain individuals identified with both sides are enemies of Americanism. Some few of them openly declare that they are, that they wish to demolish the whole structure which has been erected by the past, but those few do not count for the purposes of the present discussion, and it is not worth while for either side to refer to them. Where the pot is black with that kind of pitch the kettle is also markt. Debaters should simply square accounts on that score and discard them. The Affirmative The most ardent protagonists of this side are class-con- scious and manifest the class-spirit as do many supporters of the other side. Debaters cannot afford to line up with them, or yield of the clap-trap appeals which they employ. An open and straightforward attack upon labor unions as such has been 123 1 ^ ' 1 found so weak that even the most ardent supporters of the open shop take occasion to protest their readiness to accept the "right kind of unions". On the other hand, the labor unions have been convicted of excesses and arbitrary use of the power which the fortunes of the late war afforded them. The affirmative has the right to make the most of that fact, and the negative will do well to concede it. The test of argument will come when the bearing of this fact upon the question of open shop is showd. Will the open shop reduce to impotence or destroy the trade union? The affirmative cannot leave that question out of consideration. He will not get very far in his program for ridding the house of vermin who can only propose that the house shall be burnd down. The end, desirable as it may be, does not justify the proposed means. The Negative It is a question how far the negative must go in providing an alternative plan of industrial organiaztion, supposing he can prove that the open shop plan is not desirable. The affirmative may insist that American industry should not be left a prey to the reasonable anticipated altenatives. The Negative may be thus forced to be positive, if the paradox may be permitted. What is the alternative? The closed shop? The stoutest opponents of the open shop are not prepared to accept the alter- native, at least under that term. The trade unionists says the alternative is the union shop, What is that? Is it not closed to all except unionists? Does not every orthodox unionist aim finally at the hundred-per-cent union shop? Must he not ac- cept responsibility for the evils which may be demonstrated to inhere in his aim, even though all those evils do not appear in the partly open, partly closed shop? Is not the program of the unions a laying of the lines of a battle from which there is no final retreat until one host is victor and the other is van- quisht? And must not the unionist accept the onus of all which will happen if the unions are completely victorious? Tertium Quid Those of you who are studying Latin will readily translate this expression. It means a third something. Usually the third something is what neither of the parties to a hot partisan fight are prepard to accept. Each insists that it shall have the com- I r 1 ) 124 THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA plete victory. And in this debate the question is so worded that one side or the other must win. At least one team of de- baters must win and the other lose. It does not follow that one side of the question or the other will certainly win and the other lose. When the public steps in, as it must in the end, to adjudicate this controversy, either through governmental agencies or otherwise, will the resulting industrial organization be cither an open or a closed shop? Will it not be neither? Will it not be both? Just what that form or organization will be nobody knows. At least nobody can convince all the rest that he knows. And the discovery is beside our present point. A great variety of experiments are now being made in this, that and the other in- du:try which aims to set aside the controversy involvd in our debate, and avoid meeting the issue it raises. A large pro- portion of the public is disposed to call down the plague upon both contestants, and is casting about for a program which will eliminate the clamor of both. Many level-headed students of American industry believe these experiments are hopeful as furnishing some side lights on the real issue, but that none can fully meet the crisis. Per- haps the only way to industrial peace is through a more or less decided victory for one party or the other. But the realization that an increasing number of students have grown hopeless of that sort of a peace, should at least keep our debaters more level- headed in their discussion. As urgd in another connection, we all should rise above the clap-trap which has been much too often employd by both sides. Whatever partisans on either side may think, a' great many people who have a right to an opinion and who have the power to back up their opinions in the end, believe that neither group of partisans has the right or the power to win. They do not propose that our society shall be the prey of the kind of warfare which this controversy has pre- cipitated in our industrial f^eld. All citizens are finally con- cernd, and a great number are disposed not to allow the pres- ent endless conflict to go on. Both spoild children may be sent supperless to bed. So, our debaters should not under any circumstances join the group of spoild children, but debate this question as the serious-minded and well-balanct citizens whom they will show themselves to be as soon as they take their full part in the social, political and industrial body. V THE OPEN SHOP I^S s t You will find that every bit of conscientious study you put in on this question will repay you over and over again, now and next year and to the end of your-days. Master the subject and yourself. You then will win, whatever the judges or the audience have to say about the results. . I f:- ■ Jifc -• iiiif - f-iSL ( IB A Date Due (•: DU7 0^4- Oklahoma, University, University extension division,Dept. of pub> lie discussion and debate,.. ..."OiOfiMB shop, m\t>%\^ NEH Mkt^m iWDHBiai 0041412192 "I I s I'll ' -^1 4 I \ I! 1 .-^ /' 7::^^ ■'•■t-;V\ If END OF TITLE