CHAPTER VIII

UNION RECOGNITION AND THE UNION

SHOP

Consistent with the partnership theory-"The free American workman" the anarchist in industry-The "scab" a grafter -An A. F. of L. weapon-Position of different internationals -Preferential shop.

66

A UNION shop, called outside of union circles a closed shop," that is, a shop where the owner has agreed to employ only members of a union, and union recognition, or the agreement by the employer to deal with representatives of the union, instead of with his employees individually as to this or that condition of employment, are both demands that follow logically the program of the American Federation of Labor.

These demands are inherent parts of the theory of the partnership relation between capital and labor. They are usually considered strategic measures, but they are more than that. They are acknowledgments of the principle of a partnership relation between capital and labor, and they give all subsequent acts their sanction.

To a disciple of the partnership theory, it is as consistent to claim that a man enlisted in the service of a state is "free" in his American citizenship to

serve special interests, not sanctioned by the state, as it is to claim that an individual worker or individual employer, enlisted in the service of industry, is free either to accept conditions of employment, or to impose them before they are agreed to by the industry as a whole, or in the interests of all. A worker who insists on his personal rights, irrespective of the rights of others, to work for whom he pleases and on terms. which please him, is the anarchist of industry, as are also those who praise and protect him in his assumed right. On grounds, then, of ethical implication, and in the interest of justice and industrial peace, the "free American workingman" and the non-union employer become fit subjects for coercion.

The demand for a union shop is closely associated with the attitude of unionists toward non-unionists. The non-unionist, or scab, is a grafter to all union men. He enjoys the rewards of improved conditions which have resulted from sacrifices of labor unionists without himself having shared or suffered in their sacrifices. In other words, all labor unionists recognize through their bitter experience that one of the results of the partial organization of the trade or industry, of a successful or partially successful strike, is the victimization of the men and women who have borne the brunt and burden of the strike; that the reaping of whatever rewards or benefits result from organized action are enjoyed by the strike-breaker as well as by the striker. They are enjoyed by the

man who fought against the award, and against the men who made the struggle, who paid the price, and who won the fight for all.

66

Approaching the question of the union shop from opposite positions, the Railway Brotherhoods and Industrial Workers of the World oppose the position of the American Federation. The Brotherhoods in theory stand with those who preach the rights of the free American workmen." As a matter of fact, the insurance features of the Brotherhoods have brought the bulk of railroad workers into membership, and for membership purposes the union shop regulation is unnecessary. But on other grounds the union shop is not necessary to railroad organization. The unform regulations of a railroad extend over whole classes of workers. Men are not bargained with individually. A fixed rate is decided on or other conditions are arranged for, and a blanket order is carried out without variation over a system. As has been observed, the regulations and order of a railroad and of a state are applied with the same mechanical regularity to all the servants of each.

The Industrial Workers does not ask for union recognition or the union shop, not because it believes in the "free American workman," but because it wants no recognition from employers whose rights it refuses to recognize in the ownership or administration of wealth and its production.

Practically all the unions of the Federation demand

union recognition, but this question, as well as the question of the union shop, is settled by the individual union. Unions of such strength as the Typographical make union shop contracts, while the Iron Molders make few closed shop agreements. As one of its officers expresses it. "it is the duty of the union

alone to make unionists of the workers."

Some of the unions adopt an opportunistic attitude; that is, they graduate their demands. They include, for instance, the union shop in their demands only after the trade is well organized. It comes after demands for the adjustment of conditions of employment, as it is, in the experience of unions, the most difficult demand to secure. Other unions make the union shop their first demand, on the ground that in their weakness they need the assurance that members will not be discharged on account of their membership. If a shop strikes in rush season, a newly organized trade can frequently gain a union shop contract. The fight to hold the gain comes later. They realize this when they make the original demand, but they claim that the securing of that demand advertises the advantages and strength of organization among other workers of the trade, that it gives the workers courage, and is good propaganda tactics. This is the wellknown position taken by the young Jewish women in sewing trades, in their first attempt at organization.

It was the wholesale discrimination against union members, and the use of the blacklist by the employers,

which led the Bridge and Structural Iron Workers to make the union-shop contract the issue in the trade.

The strike of miners in the southern coal fields of Colorado, called in September, 1913, and resulting in a war between the miners and the operators of the entire state before May of the following year, startled the general public into an understanding of the difference between union recognition and the union shop and disclosed, also, the reasons why opponents of unions treat both as an abridgement of personal freedom.

The strike followed the refusal of the mine operators to grant the miners certain minima, one of which was recognition of the union; that is, that the operators would consent to deal with representatives of their men, who chose to delegate their dealings with the coal companies to officers of the United Mine Workers. The union made no demand on the mine operators to employ union men, but there was a law on the statute books of Colorado which prohibited employers from discharging men because of their membership in a union. This law, like all other laws for the protection of Colorado miners, was deliberately ignored. The operators knew that the observance of the law or the recognition of the union would result automatically in the complete unionization of the mines. They claimed that only ten per cent of the men belonged to the union, leaving it, as usual, to be inferred that the other ninety per cent.