union associates. Thanks to the labor union members who stood by him he resisted the first two attempts to fire him on technicalities. The third time he was laid off on account of unemployment. When requested to give him a letter of recommendation to another plant, a company executive wrote that his workmanship was good, but his "character very poor, was a disturber in the department, retarded production, and had distorted views on economic questions." These words reflect the general opinion of company union employers toward active trade unionists in their plants. This worker, who is an exceptionally keen observer, describes the company union as "a plan of representation including delegates from the employees of each department who meet at different times to discuss baseball, bowling, picnics, and banquets. But never did they at any time—and I attended nearly all of the meetings—take up any matter that was of vital interest to the workers, such as wages and hours of labor." This, as we have noted, is a common complaint against the company union. It is willing to discuss almost anything except issues of genuine importance to the workers. As a device for putting over "welfare" this type of union is without an equal. As an instrument for stifling important economic demands it is equally effective.
International Harvester Company.
Some twenty plants of this company in the United States and Canada are working under the Harvester Industrial Council scheme. The plan has been much praised by employers ever since 1919 when most of the plants adopted it. One of the Chicago plants held out at the time, and when its workers went on strike later, the council was used to close down the other Chicago plants "to avoid bloodshed," which is one way of saying that picket-
33
