The Labor Question (Gladden)

by Washington Gladden

The danger of the hour, as it appears to me, is that our captains of industry will array against themselves the gathering might of resistless democracy and be trampled in the dust. It would be far better for them, and for the common man, and for all the rest of us, if they would keep the leadership of industry. Leadership they can have if they have wit to claim it and sense enough to exercise it—leadership but not lordship. Industrial democracy wants leaders, but not autocrats; and large rewards and precious—not billions of dollars, but blessing and honor—are waiting for those who have the vision and the courage for this high service.

Industrial democracy means giving the wage-workers, through collective bargaining, a voice in the determination of their share in the joint product. It does not mean the domination of the business by the men and the subjugation of the employer, though this is the employer's apprehension, and this is the notion that sometimes gets into the working man's head. Mr. Kier Hardie, M. P., for whom I have great respect, spoke only the other day of the prospect that the working class was about to become the ruling class. Pardon, Mr. Hardie, but in democracy there arc no ruling classes. We call no man master, not even the walking delegate. And inverted feudalism, with the common man on top, would be no whit better than the old fashioned sort with the common man under foot. We will have neither of them. You are not going to tyrannize over us, Mr. Kier Hardie, with your labor organizations, and we do not believe that you really want to do any such thing. You are going to stand by our side, with power in the industrial realm to assert and maintain your rights as men, and with a sense of justice in your breasts that will enable you to fully recognize the rights of your capitalist employer; and we are going to work together, all classes—men of capital, men of organizing talent, men of skill, men of brains and men of brawn—to build a real commonwealth.

So shall we realize our democracy. It has never been anything more than the skeleton of a democracy; so long as industry is feudalistic it cannot be. But when the common man is emancipated and called into partnership by the captains of industry, we shall have a real democracy. No superhuman vision is needed to discern the fact that the confusions and corruptions of our political democracy are largely due to the disorganizing influence of this industrial feudalism, in constant contact with it, and continually thrusting its alien conceptions and ideals into the political arena. When industry is fairly democratized it will be much easier to reform our politics.

The relinquishment of autocratic power is not apt to be a welcome suggestion; the cases are few in which it is surrendered without a deadly struggle. But within the last generation we have seen the feudal rulers of Japan resigning their power and entering heartily into the life of the commonwealth, with great honor to themselves and great profit to their nation. It is not incredible that many of our. own captains of industry will discern the wisdom of a similar sacrifice. Indeed, there are those among them to whom this solution of the labor problem seems altogether feasible.

The late William Henry Baldwin, Jr., whose biography has been so admirably written by Mr. John Graham Brooks, was a type of the class of employers to whom the democratization of industry is the way of life and peace. As a railway superintendent and president he had large experience in dealing with men, and all the positions taken in this chapter were held by him with the utmost firmness. Speaking of the extension of collective bargaining, he says: "The advantages of this system are very obvious in that it is a system founded o-n an intelligent treatment of each question at issue, and encourages education, and, as far as we can see today, is the most advanced method and liable to produce the best results. Collective bargaining and voluntary arbitration are possible, however, only when the employer recognizes the right of the employed to have a voice in the fixing of wages and terms of employment. If these billions of capital have to be organized to protect themselves against disputing rivalries, do not the laborers working for these organizations have the same need of combination? Do they not need it for the same reason? Is capital exposed to cut throat competition in any greater degree than labor is exposed to it? How can capital have the face to ask for combination in order to free itself from a murderous competition, when labor suffers every whit as much from the same cause?"

"I have heard Baldwin," his biographer goes on, "very eloquent on this subject. The deepest thing in Him was his sense of justice. He felt it like an insult that the more powerful party should stoop to ask such odds against the weaker and more defenceless party." "We men at the top," says Baldwin, "must have combination, we must have our representatives and 'walking delegates'. We have everything that powerful organization can ask, with the ablest lawyers to do our bidding. Labor, to protect its rights and standards needs organization, at least as much as we need it. For capital to use its strength and skill to take this weapon from the working men and women is an outrage. I need, as an employer, an organization among my employees, because they know their needs better than I can know them, and they are. therefore, the safeguard upon which I must depend in order to prevent me from doing them an injustice."

This is getting right at the nerve of the whole matter. No wiser, braver, saner words were ever spoken. The labor question will be speedily settled when such a spirit of justice and fair play, such a recognition of the elementary rights of manhood, gets possession of the hearts of employers. Of the habit of mind that cannot concede so much as this, one can say nothing better than that it is unsportsmanlike. We give even the wild creatures a chance for their lives; and so long as the industrial struggle continues, the chivalrous employer will not insist that his employees shall go into the contest with their hands tied behind them.

Beyond this question of personal honor between employer and employee is one that touches very deeply the foundations of their social structure. "If capital refuses to labor what capital asks and takes for itself, what are the final consequences of that injustice? How. in the long run, is labor to take this defeat of what it believes to be its rights? Those capitalist managers, really hostile to the unions, said to him in excuse that the unions checked and hindered the development of business prosperity. Baldwin had his answer: 'Even if that is true, it is better to get rich at a somewhat slower pace than to make millions of wageearners lose faith in your justice and fairness.'"

Is it too much to expect that our captains of industry will give sober heed to words like these, spoken by one of their own number? It is not, however, necessary to assume that the democratization of industry will prove any serious obstruction to the healthy growth of business. If the trade-unions have often shown themselves to be tyrannical and greedy, we must remember that they have been fighting, thus far, in an arena where belligerent rights were denied them; it is not to be wondered at that they have sometimes taken unfair advantages. When their rights are fully recognized, better conduct may be looked for. So long as they are treated as enemies it is not logical to ask them to behave as friends.

It would be interesting to study the origin of those trade-unions which have made trouble for employers. The cases are not all alike, but in many instances something like this has happened: some dissatisfaction on the part of the men has shown itself, and it becomes known to the employer that steps are being taken for the organization of a union. At once his displeasure is manifested. He feels that the action is hostile to his interest; his entire attitude toward it is unfriendly from the start. It becomes well understood among the men that those who join the union are exposing themselves to the ill will of the employer; that those who refuse to join may expect his favor. Thus the interests of the men are divided, and the non-unionist contingent is fostered by the manager as a force to check and defeat the unionists in the event of a struggle. Under such circumstances bad temper is generated on both sides, and the relations of all parties are badly strained. The manager refuses to recognize the union; that, he insists, would be an injustice to the loyal men who have refused to join it. If a union with such a history should prove to be a refractory and disturbing element in the business, it would not be a miracle.

Suppose, now, that when the first signs of an uprising, among the men appear, the employer, instead of treating it with suspicion or hostility, welcomes it. Suppose he goes out among the men and says to them what Baldwin would have said: "Certainly, men, you must organize. I mean to treat you fairly, but I do hot want you to be dependent upon my favor; I insist that you shall have the power to stand for your own rights. And I want all the men in this shop to join this union, and I expect the union to be my friend. This is not my business, not your business, it is our business. I shall study your interest and you will study mine; we will consult together about it all the while; I think we can make it go together. If you ask me for what I cannot give, I shall tell you so. And I hope you will learn to believe that I am telling you the truth. I shall stand for my rights if you are mean and unreasonable, and you will stand for yours, if you think I am unjust, but if we must fight we stand on the level and fight fair. I hope there will be no fighting."

Now it is possible that a group of American workingmen could be found who would make trouble for an employer who took that attitude and consistently maintained it, but I do not believe that there are many such groups. It would be visionary to expect that any method which man could devise would wholly remove friction and discontent, and a strong and firm hand would often be needed in carrying out such a purpose as this, but one may confidently predict that peace and prosperity are made nearer by this approach than on the lines of industrial feudalism.

It will be observed also that such a line of policy eliminates the question of the closed shop. If the employer wishes all of his employees to belong to the union, and makes it clear that union men are favored, the reason for a closed shop practically disappears. The employer's reason for an open shop is need of a force at hand to fight the union; when he makes the union his ally instead of his enemy, non-unionism becomes both to him and to his men a negligible quantity.

The man who takes up a purpose of this kind, whether he is proprietor or general manager, cannot be guaranteed an easy job. It will not be possible for him to turn it over to subordinates; he will have to keep close to it himself. It will call for labor, for self control, for faith in men, for all the best qualities of mind and heart.