We have heard much of late of the right to work, and it cannot be doubted that under normal conditions, and without prejudice to the rights of others, all men should be permitted to earn their bread in the sweat of their brow. There is another right, however, as sacred and as inalienable, namely, the right not to work, the right to desist from work either singly or concertedly, when conditions are such as to render this action advisable and justifiable. There is no doubt that strikes are evil, but they are not so evil as industrial oppression, not so evil as the truck system, not so evil as the sweating in our great cities, not so evil as unregulated exploitation of woman and child labor. The great majority of strikes in the United States have had justifiable reasons. During the last twenty years, of all the strikes in the United States, 58%, as measured by the number of establishments affected, were fought out either for an increase of wages, a decrease in hours, or both, or against an attempted reduction in wages, while only 31% were sympathetic demonstrations with other workers, and less than 1% for the sole avowed purpose of obtaining recognition of the union. Moreover, of these strikes the majority were won, over one-half being wholly, and over one-eighth, partially, successful, while less than threeeighths failed completely. Moreover, it has been the intelligent and better class of workmen who have struck, and not the ragtag of the army. “Labor conflicts," says Commissioner Wright, "grow out of increased intelligence . . . . . fools do not strike. It is only men who have intelligence enough to recognize their condition that make use of this last resort." It is the states with the highest industrial development, such as New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio, which have a disproportionately large number of labor conflicts; whereas in the more backward states, strikes are much fewer. It has often been observed that when a strike is justifiable demand for fair treatment, when it is only the possible expression of a "divine discontent," it is the heroes among the workinen who are in the van of the movement. What is true of states is equally true of nations. Strikes are most frequent in those countries in which civilization is most highly

developed. As a matter of fact, strikes are practically unknown in the less advanced nations.

In all conflicts of this sort, where men are fighting for a principle or for tolerable conditions of life, there is, apart from its material advantages, a great moral gain derived from the strike. It is difficult to overestimate the gain from a righteous labor uprising, and there are few moral forces more uplifting than the strike spirit that cements a vast army of crude men. It is to be accounted an evil in strikes that they cause bitter feelings between employers and employed, and between union and non-union men, although frequently a strike has the opposite tendency of clearing the atmosphere. Strikes have, however, at least this compensating advantage, that they unite with the bond of mutual self-sacrifice the men who are fighting together for the good of the whole. We conceive of strikes in a militant sense, but a strike is a siege rather than an assault. A strike cannot be won by a single action, but requires the greatest amount of endurance, patience, and self-control. The striker must husband his resources, must remain sober, must economize for the sake of his wife and children, must aid his neighbor who is needier than he, and must refrain from all manner of violence and all incentive to excitement. Day by day must he watch his supplies getting lower, must see perhaps his wife and children growing pallid under the stress of privation, must see other men work in his place, sometimes at wages higher than those for which he struck. The striker must refrain from manifesting any bitterness towards those who have taken his place, or towards the men who have been imported into his town for the sake of frightening him into submission. He must turn the other check to the swaggering bullies engaged as private police, and must in all cases refrain from entering into a contest with them. Temptation comes to such a man to sell out his fellows for the sake of great gain to himself. He is offered all manner of bribes, from a better position to a direct money gift, and he is told continually by agents of the employer that other men are deserting and that he is a fool to suffer that others may take advantage of his sacrifice. The courage, the steadfastness, the quiet endurance of workmen upon

a strike verge upon the heroic. It is not good reading matter, not good "copy," and the papers make nothing of it. A hundred thousand men display exceptional self-denial and self-restraint, and the press of the country is dumb. A single man wields a club or heaves a brick, and the wires are hot with telegrams to all parts of the world. To the man who has lived through a strike, however, the great compensation for its evils is the quiet, modest, unrecorded heroism which it calls forth.

When a strike is thus fought out upon a moral basis, when men throw into the scale their bread and the bread of their wives and children, when men stand shoulder to shoulder and fight the dreary tragic battle of starvation and eviction, the contest cannot be lost. It is a commonplace among unionists that a strike lost is a strike won. The men may yield, they may

be starved, shot, beaten, they may lose in wages and confidence, but others are encouraged by their struggle; and their fellow-workers and eventually they themselves gain by their sacrifice. The workingmen are saved from the aggression of unscrupulous members of the employing class, not only by their ability to win strikes, but by their willingness to fight even a losing battle.

While recognizing the advantages which may come from strikes, however, the approved policy of the best unions is to give their vote for peace wherever there is a reasonable measure of doubt. No more than employers do unions favor strikes and lockouts; like employers, they resort to them only in extreme cases. With the growth of unions in funds and membership the number of strikes tends to diminish. In its infancy an organization may be reckless and aggressive, but its approach to manhood almost invariably brings with it an increased sense of responsibility. It has been observed in England, as in the United States, that unions make for peace and not for war. The effect of the change from small, unorganized bodies of workmen to a single, homogeneous union has been similar to that of the change from little, reckless, fighting, cantankerous principalities to a single, strong, unified nation. Trade unions are the most effective, but not the most frequent strikers, and it is because they can strike so effectively that they are

not obliged to do it frequently. The unions, moreover, approve the policy of conciliation, voluntary arbitration, and trade agreements, so that with stable conditions the number of strikes will diminish. There can be no doubt that the unions and those employers who favor trade agreements are doing their utmost to prevent the wastefulness of strikes. On the other hand, those employers who insist upon managing their own business and upon dealing only with their own employees are, because of their arbitrary and dictatorial methods, responsible for the majority of strikes. With the growth of a spirit of mutual concession and with a better understanding of the needs and aspirations of both classes, the necessity for, and justification of, the great majority of strikes will pass away.

CHAPTER XXXVI

THE PROPER CONDUCT OF A STRIKE

How a Strike Must be Conducted. Maintaining Enthusiasm. Informing the Public.. Alertness and Vigilance. Errors Inevitable. The Moral Aspect of Strikes and of Lockouts. Violence Defeats its own Purpose. Better to Lose Strikes than Win by Violence. Violence and Peaceful Picketing. Individual Crimes and Union Responsibility. Exaggeration. The Sinews of War. The Financiering of a Strike.

THE responsibility of a labor leader does not cease with the calling of a

strike. A strike may be perfectly justifiable both in morals and policy; it may be an inevitable revolt against intolerable oppression, and | may be inaugurated with every likelihood of success. Unless properly conducted, however, a strike, be it ever so just, ever so noble in its purposes and aims, may very well be lost.

The problems involved in the conduct of a strike are many and pressing, and the whole strike may collapse through failure to meet any issue, however suddenly raised. It is necessary to keep up the spirit of the men struggling, it may be, against great odds, and to infuse the weaker I members with the hope of the more confident. It is especially necessary to conserve the funds of the organization and to distribute relief in such a manner as to satisfy the needs and maintain the strength of the strikers. It is no less necessary to be aware at all times of the resources of the strikers as well as of the strength, tenacity and purposes of the opponent. The leader of the strikers must ever be open to any reasonable proposition made by the other side, and must give heed and respectful attention to any suggestion Imade by disinterested parties. The sympathy of the public must be secured by the fair presentation of the strikers' side of the controversy, and this sympathy must be retained by reasonable conduct and moderate and temperate action throughout. The enthusiasm of the men for the strike must con