O others concerned with the administration of labor ffairs. Labor unionists instinctively resist the domiation of the reformer as they have deliberately rested the domination of the employer. They are emarrassed by the good intentions of the new dominaon but unable to meet it. They accept positions I vice-presidents while the reformers assume, quite turally, the positions of presidents. The reformer is uipped for the campaign with a sort of training and perience which is not labor's and with which labor is familiar. The reformers formulate their theories d observations of labor conditions with a marvelous ecision which they can execute precisely because they e impersonal. They can formulate and execute their Opositions without any of the inhibiting influences ich enter into affairs of personal concern. But for the unionist who is invited to coöperate in execution, the propositions are filled with personal port; there is something strange and unreal about precision with which they are handled by the ert reformer. The unionist has his inhibitions. has not the habit of formulation. He is not ctised in directing others. Cases may be cited ere labor leaders have dominated a common moveit made up of all sorts of citizens, but they are eptions. The common relation and the common tude is as I have described it. Reformers recogtheir advantageous position, and they make strens effort to cover up inherent differences, but labor

is more sensitive to the differences than the reformer, and the efforts to make labor comfortable under such circumstances are not strikingly successful. It is unfair to cite cases where labor representatives dominate a movement of citizens, if it is intended to blind others to the usual position in which labor finds itself either when it enters movements initiated by reformers or where reformers enter the labor movement.

But this being the case, the reformer asks what difference does it make? Is not the elimination of industrial evils the all-important point? The families of wage-earners are suffering from illness, unemployment, under-feeding, and bad housing. What difference is there between one agency and another, except their ability to combat these evils? What difference does it make who secures compensation for the family of a workingman injured while at work, if it is secured? What difference is there between the protection of factory workers against fire whether secured by a safety committee of citizens or by a union? Does not a pension for the sick, the aged, or the unemployed buy food or pay rent, whether secured by sociologists or by labor unionists? Does not an eight-hour day give a woman worker the same leisure if it is granted at the instigation of a woman's club or a woman's union?

There is no question of rivalry between the reform movements and the labor unions. Industrial devastation is wide and deep. Many movements of

national scope operate without crossing. But the diference between labor's activity in its own behalf and he activity of others in labor's interest is not only a matter of results. Immediate results may be served n either case, but whenever labor attacks the evils which beset it, new power is created. Labor reforms nitiated outside of labor unions are, in their adminisration, left to state agents or experts. State adminstration is conspicuously inadequate, incapable, and different. Experts can successfully handle inaniate things, but the fundamental interests of men e neither successfully nor finally directed from pove. A successful administration of labor measures quires labor's own constant, determined interest and tention. No one can fail to realize the truth of this ho compares the efficiency of administration of labor ion measures within a trade or industry and state por measures depending on the inspection of state icials. Benevolently imposed measures are weak bstitutes for those which are self-imposed and adnistered.

No one doubts that measures for industrial betterent, as they are initiated by philanthropists or by pital, and administered by experts or state officials, 1 make large contributions toward minimizing ysical waste and disease in modern industry. It is, leed, a movement for sanitation and conservation. full realization would give clean homes, healthy ldren, and efficient workers. But class-conscious

labor wants much more. It wants citizenship in industry. It is no more willing to submit to the rule of the beneficent and efficient than were the American colonists willing to submit to the rule of the British Parliament. Labor would rather be free than clean.

The reform movement is not co-extensive with democracy but with bureaucracy. The labor unions are group efforts in the direction of democracy. Like the political efforts in the same direction, they become many times stultified and lead up blind alleys. But the effort creates power. While the economic gains are themselves important and are measures of strength, the significance of the labor union is its assertion of the manhood of labor. The labor unionist, who has no theory in regard to the class struggle, is often the most class-conscious of workingmen. His class-consciousness is his innate self-respect extended to his class and intensified in his resentment against the position which society assigns the worker.

AM

Effort to

tion

eral

tions

powe

State

THE th

upheld of its

of cap

moral

The

thirty

of co

nersh

the

TH

ners

to a

divi

mar

wea

var

CHAPTER II

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

ort to establish its theory of partnership relations with capital-Variations in purpose and methods within the Federation-Minority sentiment-Methods of organization-Fed

eral

character-Conventions-International unions-Variations in policies and government, autonomy, disciplinary powers-Local unions-Departments-Executive councilsState and city branches.

E theory of the American Federation of Labor, held by its national representatives and a majority its local officers, is that the inevitable dependence capital on labor and labor on capital creates a ral obligation of partnership relations.

The American Federation of Labor was organized ty-three years ago to secure, through the method collective bargaining, a "fair share" in the partship-a share which capital had failed to grant workers as individuals.

The Federation claimed that labor's share in a partship of natural or mutual interests gives it a "right voice" in determining what is a "fair share" or dend. As organized groups of workers have deaded a voice in the fixing of their share in the 1th produced, they have been met with the inable answer from capital, "It is none of your