An Impending Conflict by L. A. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Jun 9, 1904

An Impending Conflict

By L. A. S.

The status of the labor controversy in the United States at the present time is this: the labor unions have been met by the formation of employers’ unions, and the issue around which the controversy now centers is that of the “open shop,” by which expression is meant the recognition of the right of the employer to employ non-union men in his industry, and to hire and discharge men at his own discretion. The labor unions are determined to oppose the recognition of this right on an employer’s part “to the last ditch,” and it seems that a tremendous struggle between the unions and

employers—greater than anything this country has yet known—is inevitable.

The reason for this determination of the unions to fight the open shop to the bitter end, and to win at any cost, is, as stated by Mr. William English Walling, who is an authority on the facts of the situation, that “the open shop means the destruction of the unions.” In a recent article contributed to The Independent, describing the existing situation, Mr. Walling says:—

The whole employing class of the United States is lining up for a new campaign against the unions. In this fight it is backed by the press, the middle classes, public opinion generally, and the highest labor arbitration tribunal in the country. The struggle is momentous. It will decide not only the industrial, but the social and political future of the United States. If the employers’ campaign is successful, it means the elimination of the trades unions as a factor in American industry. If it fails, nothing short of direct government control can prevent the unions’ steady progress toward industrial domination.

Answering the question, What is the open shop? as the unions view it, Mr. Walling says:—

Fortunately an official interpretation of the open shop has been given to us by the highest labor arbitration court which we have ever had—a court appointed by the president of the United States and accepted by the nation. The Anthracite Coal Strike Commission was not only our most important labor arbitration board, but it has left behind it the most important “trade agreement” in industry. The commission’s award was of course in general terms, and first of all provided for an umpire to decide disputes arising under it. Col. Carroll D. Wright, head of the Bureau of Labor, has been appointed umpire.

The Anthracite Commission decided for an open shop. In a recent decision that has alarmed and antagonized the whole labor movement, Colonel Wright defines the open shop as follows:—

“There can be no doubt that the employer has a perfect right to employ and discharge men in accordance with the conditions of his industry; that he is not obliged to give any cause for discharge. . . . This right to discharge must be maintained. Any other view of the case . . . would compel employers to employ men whether they had work for them or not, and whether the men were competent or not, and would thus stagnate business and work to the injury of all other employers.”

President Roosevelt approves of the award of the Anthracite Commission. His appointee, Commissioner Wright, shows that this award has as its very basis the right to discharge without cause. The right to discharge without cause is the feature of the open shop against which the unions will fight to the last ditch. . . .

To admit the right to discharge without cause is, the unions believe, to sign their own death warrant. If the employer can discharge a man “who does not suit him,” to quote Colonel Wright again, he can discharge a union man for the simple reason that he is a union man. Nor is the employer’s promise not to discriminate sufficient. To fall back on the promise of the employer is to bring the workman back to the same condition of servile dependence he occupied when he had to ask for better wages as an individual favor, instead of demanding them through his union as a right.

The employer who can “discharge without cause,” can deprive the workman of his means of subsistence and the union of its members. No organization can continue to exist longer than it is able to protect its individual members from outside attack. For a “labor” organization to protect its members it must first of all keep them at work. To a union man permanently out of a job a union card is a bit of pasteboard, and a union agreement for better wages is not worth the paper on which it is written.

The employer who can “discharge without cause” has the power to use war measures in times of peace. By locking out union men one at a time he can wage a quiet war of extermination as effective as a general lockout, and much less expensive. Under arbitration and the trade agreement he can do exactly what he does in an open fight—he can wield against the unions the whole reserve army of labor, the great body of the unorganized and the unemployed.

It is clearly the intention of the unions, therefore, to repudiate arbitration and the “trade agreement” which represents the decision of the Anthracite Strike Commission. And as this Strike Commission was the last resort to obtain peace in the great conflict which caused such general disturbance and trouble throughout the country, the repudiation of the decision of this body makes it clear that the unions have decided to take matters into their own hands, and fight against the open shop until either they shall have won or been hopelessly beaten. They mean war, to the death of one side or the other.

What further convinces the unions of the necessity of such action is the fact that employers’ associations are preparing to deal with their employees through a “blacklist.” “Employers’ associations,” says Mr. Walling, “are everywhere installing the Employment Bureau. By this means the employees of all the members of an association are registered, and their records, including always their records as unionists, are kept. In each shop the employer naturally gives every preference to loyal and obedient non-union men. By means of the Employment Bureau these same loyal individuals may be preferred by the associated employers in the distribution of jobs in the season when work is scarce. The union workmen may find themselves not only discriminated against while employed, but given employment in inverse ratio to their loyalty to their union. The Employment Bureau gives a whole industry the information, the means, and the opportunity for discrimination against union men.” “Employers are taking a final stand against the unionization of industry by fighting the battle of the non-union men.”

In conclusion, Mr. Walling inquires, What is to be the result? and says:—

One thing is clear. In dealing with labor, employers will act as a unit. They have already united on the open shop. The open shop leads to the Employment Bureau, the Employment Bureau to the National Labor Bureau. The blacklist will be practised on a national scale. The unions also will act not locally and by separate trades, but nationally and in concert. The sympathetic lockout they will fight with the sympathetic strike. To the national blacklist they will reply with the national strike. Labor conflicts are to become a community affair. The most vital concern of the nation is to be the labor question.

If the coming struggle is won by the employers, it will only be after a long and bitter contest on the part of the unions, waged with an intensity born of the conviction that they are fighting for their very existence, and that to lose the battle is to lose all. If the unions win, on the other hand, the control of the nation’s industries, which means the control of the nation itself, will pass into the hands of the unions,—into the hands of organizations neither constituted by vote of the people nor representative of the whole people nor responsible to the people. And that will mean the end of all semblance of free, republican government in this country. Experience is not wanting to show what would become of individual rights and liberties under a government by labor unions.

Such prospective strife arises from the selfish, warring propensities of the unregenerate heart, and would naturally continue as long as human nature remains what it is, and what it has been since the fall of Adam. What but the coming of the Prince of Peace can bring permanent peace upon the earth? Happily, it is the privilege of peace lovers to rejoice in the assurance that that event is at hand. L. A. S.