THE UNION LABEL

Evening Star, Issue 12606, 11 September 1905, Page 7

THE UNION LABEL

wcptm to :km^'':V^*^i%^-&ss' wm firstlntooduoed m Bin Vtwmsa id order to <maM« tho wWta workers t£e luge number ot Ohmes* who ted"flo«ked to that otty-unaer the Chinese Treaty .»f 1869. Mr John MitohsU (preMden* of the Urttod Mtae Worfwra. H"»-«l *t» IwwjsJlabor otgiuaiMtnwtf'ia tte Republic) »y» "it wm won extended from fighting .WW** w* o Qhiue*e to fight again*, unorganised laboiwThe unions we brought prawnyo to bear upon manufacturers and retaiMra,' by means or strikes, look-outs, and bpyootte, to induce them to have their goods marked " made by union labor." Boots are branded on the soles, bata are marked inside the crown, clothing is distinguished, by tickets sewn inside each garment. There are many unions and many labels, and the.ofeiecrt of.the unions is to compel manufacturers to employ unionists only on pain of having the sale of their goods stopped. "By means of this label," Mr Mitchell gays, "many non-union shops have been brought under union control. In almost every State of the Union the label has been declared to be illegal by the Courts of justice ; but the unions are still striving to force it on the manufacturers and *bopkeepers. They insist upon ezclusiva right to the label. It can only be affixed to merchandise -with, their consent. "',._, When the Labor party inserted union label provisions in the Trade Harks Bill in the Senate they provided that the unions should be " entitled to its exchisfcre use." They -wished to place the manufacturers and shopkeepers at the mercy of the unions. Ministers have modified this clause, but they have retained the general principle of a distinct union label, to be registered by any union. The modification is mere pretence, and the fact that the Labor party accepted Mr Isaac's so-called amendments shows that they are confident that they can make the label do all the work tbey want it to do even with the alterations. They want power to coerce nonunionists into joining the unions, and power also to compel employers to accept whatever, terms the t unicus may impose. The label will give that power. —Coercion.— r A few typioal oases of labor aggression in the United States show what such legislation wuold lead to. The union -enforce t&eir demands by two methods—the strike and the boycott. The name of the manufacturer or shopkeeper who is attacked is placed on a block list. Unionists who deal with a boycotted retailer are heavily fined. Public attention is directed to the shop -by means of a sandwich man, who parades up and down in front of it bearing boards which warn consumers that the proprietor of the shop employs " blacklegs " and " scabs," while a kerbstcne orator is often employed to second tlie efforts of the sandwich man. In the case of shops catering for general labor custom, the effect of this procedure has been disastrous. Trade is driven away from other shops by this system. Crowds collect round the sandwich man, and customers naturally go elsewhere in order to avoid getting mixed up in a melee. If the label unionists win, the unorganised workmen in that particular industry, or shop, have "to join, or get off the earth-'* In Polo Alto Mr Parkinson,'a contractor, refused to adopt the union label, and thus give preference to unionists. A, delegate of the Building Trades Council of San Francisco thereupon waited upon another contractor, and said that it was so important that the men should win that they would provide him with " free labor " in order to enable him to outdistance Mr Parkinson. A local employers' alliance, however, went to Mr Parkinson's assistance, and supplied him not only with free labor, but also with free material. The label unionists were foiled. The Labor Council at San Francisco numbers nearly 135 unions. The object of tho label is to consolidate tho unions and compel every working man to join them. This Council numbers among its organisations tho chickenpickers,' the fish-gutters, and even the bowling alley employees. Nothing is too large, nothing too small for their purposes. Most of the restaurants and all bootblack stands in San Francisco display union placards. The unions have endeavored to coerce every branch of industry. At one time burials of the dead were impossible, because of the demands of American union gravediggers. At another time several cafes were compelled to capitulate by men parading up and down the streets in front of them, carrying posters, which read: "Do not patronise this nonunion restaurant. It employs scab-help.—En-dorsed by the San Francisco Labor Council." Unionists are compelled to patronise none but shops which sell union latfel articles. Any member of an Executive can enter a workman's home and require him to exhibit his boots and hats and clothes for inspection; while, if tho workmen is married, his wife and children must also wejir garments bearing the labels. —More Oppression.— Besides harassing traders of every description, the unions are now reaching out to obtain command of all the schools of the country. They want to put the union label on the schoolbooks, and thus secure control over the lessons which children are taught, so that labor literature may bo made part of the daily curriculum. There is, in short, no limit to their demands. The leaders do not disguise the fact that they regard the union label as one, if not the most effective, weapon in their armory. Mr John Mitchell calls it " a very real compulsion," whilo lte admits in as many words that the label is not a guarantee of good quality. " The union hat," he says, " cannot be told from the nonunion hat by its general appearance any more than a bushel ot lowa wheat can be distinguished from a bushel of Kansas wheat in a Chicago elevator." A ]>aited States company who have recently opened a branch factory in lowa writes: —" Our experience in the United States has been that when this union label becomes legalised it become a public nuisance and a powerful lever in the hands of the labor union with which to bully the manufacturer into adc-pting a union shop, after which the manufacturer is in the hands of the labor union. . . . When the union get control of a slicp—which they necessarily must in order to have the label adopted—the cost of production is so vastly increased that tho quality immediately depreciates." The Dominion Cigar Manufacturers of the United States recently stated that "any effort to discard this emblem of union labor has invariably been followed by strenuous persistent boycott." —Danger in Australia.— ' It is proposed that this system should lie introduced in Australia. On September 16 of last year tho members of the Trades Hall Council showed that they arc prepared to carry the matter to extremes. It was assorted that a commencement had already been made in connection with the Port Melbourne bakeries, and it was urged that all Mead ( should be branded with a union label. The unions are not concerned about tho general public. Labor members frankly confess that they wish to legalise the label in order to drive non-unionists into their organisations, and thus increase their political, strength. The aggressive minority seek to coerce tlie quiescent majority. Some persons appear to believe that the label would only affect a very limited number of factories, that the manufacturers alone would be brought within the scope of its operation. As a matter of fact, experience in the United States demonstrates that no form of industry can escape. From the great factory to tho smallest lolly shop or the humble saveloy man —all are placed at the merey of the unions in both town and country. The Canadian Parliament has re- ' jeeted a measure similar to that now before tho Federal Parliament.