NINE MONTHS IN THE UNITED STATES.

Evening Star, Issue 12523, 6 June 1905, Page 7

NINE MONTHS IN THE UNITED STATES.

/ AMERICA'S UNIONISM. [SPEcrALtr Written fob Star bs T. Clabkson.] Unionism in this country and unionism in the United States are-very wide apart. Tbey start from the'same common ground; the determination is to secure for the workman a reasonable share of the results of his labor, but in their methods the American labor unionists are vastly different from oar own. This difference is inevitable. In the first place the conglomeration of nationalities that makes up the industrial population of America is a factor that must not be overlooked. These laborers in many instances cannot understand each other's language, and as a class they are intensely ignorant. This ia really the problem which faces the Labor loaders of the United States, and may form a nritisrating plea when one is criticising their methods in fighting for the existence of the unions. These leaders rule the members of the unions with an iron hand, and the tremendous power they wield is frequently abused. Unscrupulous agitators find in the ignorant masses a congenial field for their pernicious operations, and the wide dissimilarity*in speech,, customs, and ideals existing amongst the lower section of the working classes makes it exceedingly difficult to imbue them with the true aims of unionism.' The chief weapon of the American unionist is the "sympathetic strike," which the people regard as one of the most unmitigated curses that ever struck the industries of any community. It works out this way: Mr Jones, painter, may, as employer, treat his workmen in a quite exceptional manner, so that they become devoted to his interests. The carpenters in a town, possible hundreds of miles away, get into trouble with their employers, and, failing to obtain satisfaction, get the union to declare a strike. All the allied trades may be called upon, and Mr Jortes suddenly finds that his trusted and well-treated workmen have left him at a day's notice, leaving him to fulfil hi 3 contracts as best he can. Scores of men may be working at a big building, under most favorab'o circumstances,. with regular work for a lengthy period guaranteed, and at wages satisfactory to themselves and urgently needed by their families. The walking delegate comes along, and they throw down their tools and go home, or to the drinking saloons. A unionist working outside his own special line is likely to find himself, in serious trouble, and this principle of trade classification is carried to remarkable extremes. For instance, a customer orders a ton of coal for the winter Feascm. The coai is not brought in bulk, but in bags. If the carter can bring his dray alongside the cellar opening or shed well and good, he may shoot the coal in, but he is not allowed to carry it into a back yard. A laborer must be specially employed for this purpose. An employer in a hurry to finish his building asked the union to send him union men, and said that he would pay union wages. The men did not turn up, so he employed nonunionists, and one morning found that the building had been razed to the ground. Occasionally the unionists, by their high-, handed methods, form an industrial reign of terror in certain communities. .When the St. ferais Exposition was in course of erection the work was seriously prejudiced in this way. The workmen naturally considered the occasion one for which they should receive a scale of wages considerably higher than usual. Increased rents made an increase of wages absolutely necessary. But when a body of men who had signed on through their unions to complete certain contracts at a rate of from £1 and £1 5s a day subsequently in the middle of the job struck for "fancy prices," they forfeited all public sympathy, and seriously prejudiced the cause of unionism in the minds of the public. This kind of thin-'.' happened more than once, and on one notable occasion the president of the World's Fair declared that he would let the beautiful palaces of the Exposition go unpainted,' as a _ protest against the attitude of the American working man, rather than countenance the unjust, dishonest demands of the unions. And now for the other side of the case—the position taken up by" the employers in regard to the unions. It is ea-sily stated in two words?—the " Open Shop," ""Preference to Unionists" we call it I talked to many employers and representatives of employers' Institutions in America, and this was invariably their main plank. Some would talk i.ri friendly terms of unionism as a principle, and showed a most affectionate regard for the man who toiled with his hands, but tbev always came back to the same pointj We maintain that both workman and employer shall have full power of contract between euch other quite irrespective of whether the workman has joined one of the unions or not. While I»was in St. Louis an organisation known as the Citizens' Alliance became exceedingly active. This body claimed to represent the interests'of the public against those of the contestant parties m industrial strife, the employer and the employed. It is not difficult to find reasons for the formation of such a body, for in case of a strike the chief expense and inconvenience inevitably falls upon the citizens, who in the bulk have no part in the dispute. But investigation showed it to be purely an employers' association under another name. It had important branches in the chief cities, and undoubtedly commanded a good deal of influence amongst a certain section of the people. Its platform was most _ cleverly drawn up, its uncompromising partisanship was cunningly concealed in plausible phrases, and its main plank—the rights of American citizens—was made synonymous with the maintenance of "The Open Shop." Congress, representing the most powerful and likewise the most unscrupulous capitalistic interests—namely, the trusts—backs up the employers in this principle, which, if persisted in, means death to unionism. If the right of the employer to hire union or nonunion men indiscriminately is exercised without resistance, it means that the employers will gradually fill up their shops with non-union men, becauss "non-union men, unprotected by organisation, will work cheaper, and that ultimately means the end of unionism and all that unionism stands for. Compulsory arbitration is not looked upon with favor in the United States, a fact that at first glance must be puzzling to those who have given attention to the distress and loss caused to American industries through the never-ending series of strikes. In Washington I chatted with Mr Samuel Gompers, president of the United States Federation of Unionists, on this topic, and found him utterly opposed to the principle. Indeed, it was evident that this shrewd and thoughtful labor leader had obtained most, of his views upon the working of compulsory arbitration in New Zealand from capitalistic organs of Australia. The steady growth of unionism, despite all obstacles, appeared to Mr Gompers more than satisfactory, and he reported an increased disposition on the part of employers to voluntarily submit disputes to arbitration. Mr G. B. Cortelyou, now Postmaster-General of the United States, was last year at the head of the Department of Labor, and he took a promising view of the future, for the same reason as did the great labor leader. Mr Cortelyou was greatly interested in New Zealand's industrial legislation, and said he could quite conceive that at some .future time the United States would be compelled to adopt the principle of compulsory arbitration. On this question the man in the street is not so guarded m his utterances as officials holding such responsible positions as those mentioned. The average American •cannot conceive of a judicial system in which the officials should be so far removed from suspicion as to make it safe to entrust them, with the settlement of such disputes asc ome before the Judge who presides over the New Zealand Arbitration Court In other words, he would. sooner fight to a finish with certain loss and probable defeat than place the dispute in the hands of a tribunal whose integrity he doubted. In a

subsequent article I shall endeavor to indicate what happens when the public step on one sid.' and lot the workmen and employers "fight it out." , . A peculiar feature, in connection -with unionism in the United States is. the lack of agreement between the Socialists and the Labor leadenv One would naturally look for united action on the part of these two sections, for, generally speaking, the first plank in the Socialists' creed the world over is the uplifting of the working classes. But between theso two parties there is in America the bitterest antagonism, and discussions in the ranks of the union itself are of no consequence.