employes of the railroads and of other industries I feel that under present conditions he is entitled to a large increase in salary.

These points should be emphasized to the commission appointed by General Director McAdoo to investigate the salaries of the railroad employes.

MYRON E. DAVIS, Certificate 542, Agent Mo. Pac.

THE WORKERS.

By "MACK."

PART V.

(Continued from page 43, January.)

ORGANIZING.

Despite all opposition "Organized Labor" has grown, not ahead, but following "Business Organization." Not only have labor organizations increased numerically, but they have also extended their field of action, as outlined in preceding chapters. In its development it has met a trinity of objectors, hostility of the employer, censure of the public, and the objections of many who are wage earners themselves. The first arises from conflicting economic interests that often ends in industrial conflict. Much has been written on the identity of interest of employer and employe, that looks good in printed theory, but fails in practical usage. It can all be summed up in the following-in the production of wealth under the present industrial order the interest of capitalist and laborer are identical in so far as both

are necessary

economic factors, but in the equitable division of this dual produced wealth the identity is hard to define even by the most conservative economic writers. It has never been satisfactorily defined, so that industrial strife is not so much the product of individual as it is systematic, and individuals and industrial classes are the creatures of an industrial order that foster clashing interests, and not the creators of it. Strenuousity is considered a high qualification for business leadership and business success, removing restraining obstacles is the chief work of the

strenuous leader of business and it will hardly be denied that labor organizations are a restraint on overzealous officialdom exercising its free will regardless of its effect on the employes. This is galling to the average employer that is partly responsible for his objections. Employers have many objections of a more detailed nature, but we will dismiss them and state the first and basic objection of many of them-that labor organizations exist.

Censure of what might be called the "public" composed of those who may not be directly concerned in the industry involved in strife, or the questions at issue are, nevertheless, made sufferers through In circumstances they cannot control. the battle of industrial giants "the public" receives some of the blows that in the present day vents itself in censure of one or both the giants; in the short past it was generally applied to labor. Sometimes it may have been unwarranted, sometimes perhaps deserved. Organized labor is not infallable. All these objections retard the work of organizing to a degree, but the saddest and most irritating objections often come from employes who are benefited by the power of organization in the craft they may be a worker. These objections have in many cases their source in daily news sheets, or business publications and are absorbed by the unthinking workman who phonographically repeats them to his organized neighbor, or an organizer whom he may come in contact with. It is with many of the objections met by the organizer that we will deal, and run through the crucible of thought, as there are few people in this organized age who have had the experience of labor officials and organizers in dealing with dissenters in the ranks and among those that should be their defenders.

The first is the man or woman who tells you, "I object to labor organizations on general principles." When specifications are asked for they are generally lacking, and a few more queries disclose that they are not conversant with any

of the principles, much less general principles. This poor misguided creature fails to realize that he is living in an age of organization, concentration of employing interests are taking place almost every hour before his eyes. Merger follows merger in the process of business centralization with these ends in view, first, to make money; second, to make more money, and you can follow this as far as numerals can carry you with the same monotonous object. He fails to see that there are but two basic methods to attain this end, one is by selling what the employer has to sell at the highest possible figure, and the other is to buy what he must have at the lowest possible cost. The difference between these two prices represents his minimum, or maximum profits. Among the purchases of raw materials is labor-(General Principle Objector included) is placed alongside of other commodities, and the employer-great or small-adhering to business principles, that are underwritten by economic laws never pays more than he must for it, and how "Mr. General Principle Objector" expects to protect himself from the power of organization only by counter organization he is unable to explain. When he desires to sell what he has-labor-he is confronted by highly organized corporations and trusts organized, among other things, to buy him as cheap as possible. When he buys the necessities of life he faces the same problem in the organized manufacturers, the merchants' association, organized grangers, and many others, all organized to defend themselves and their general business, and increase the value of their wares, none organized for charity but for the express purpose of taking a business advantage of those who have not the organized power to withstand their assaults. Mr. G. P. O. sees no harm in any kind of organization, but the organization of workingmen. Ask him when he condemns labor organizations. What is your substitute for them? and he is shorn of all argument and left stranded on the sea of reason. The attitude of Mr. G. P. O. also has an analogy

in black slavery, when the poor illiterate colored servants hurled more abuse at the invading army of abolition than did the real beneficiaries of slavery. The slave of 1861-65 was the "General Principle Objector" of that day.

The individualist-this type is often met by the organizer. He is one that inflates himself and proudly announces that "he does not feel like sinking his individuality in a labor organization." To hear him speak one would be led to be lieve that he climbed the steps to a general manager's office, and in some exaggerated cases the president's, after receiving a Havana cigar he made a special contract to cover himself alone. This pompous individual would be considerably jarred, and his pride diminished if he could get a look at large corporate bookkeeping where his individuality was buried in a maze of figures representing dollars and cents, profits and expenses, where his name is lost and in its stead is the daily, monthly and yearly cost of running a department of which he may be a unit. On the daily time sheet of the immediate chief of his department, if he has a pronounceable name, he may be entered under it, but if not, he is likely to appear as a number. Purchased in bulk a type of labor power of a hundred, a thousand, or more, in which so much money is invested for a profitable return. The wage is attached to the position, and not to the man. Individualism in industry has long passed away. We are living in an age of social production in which industrial types furnish but constituent parts toward the completion of a finished whole. The employer has no less ceased to be an individual in the capacity of ownership. Operating officialdom has also ceased to be an individual, they are as much industrial types as the wage earner. They are often prompted to say officially "Yes" when they personally would sooner say "No," and "vice versa." It sometimes compells them to do what the finer instincts of manhood abhor, or if they don't someone else will. The only real individualist of modern days was "Robin

son Crusoe" and he only existed in fiction.

Personal dislikes-this is an amusing cuss and would not attract much attention from a logical standpoint, but does from the numerical. He is found almost everywhere. He would not think of connecting himself with an organization to which Tom or Dick belonged, indeed he is so assertive in his opinions that he leaves you under the impression that he would prefer "Hades" if he thought the object of his personal hatred would be among the spiritual elect. My misguided friend, yours is a foolish reason when you should know that personal dislikes are not confined to yourself; we are all tainted with it more or less, but we never give it as a valid reason for non-membership in our craft union. There are men in all crafts, both inside and outside of organization that there is good reason for not desiring them for social associates, but circumstances beyond our control has made them industrial associates, and with them we must work for industrial improvement. You should not permit your industrial welfare to become endangered by personal dislikes.

Labor organizations will never rise higher than the kind of men that employers employ. All are human beings with all the failings and virtues of humanity. Using the same reason of personal dislikes should prompt you to remain apart from any other organized institution. Religious, political or fraternal, indeed, in its final analysis your logic would land you outside of organized civilization, for I am sure there are many in the human family whom you will consider as not conforming to your ideals and standards.

Strikes the organizer is often met by many who refuse because they cannot sanction "strikes." They inform you they are opposed to them for no other reason. It is just as reasonable for this workingman to oppose the government he may live under because it maintains an army or a municipality because it maintains a police force. So are all trades unionists

opposed to strikes. Many of them have passed through industrial strife where stomachs were matched against bank accounts and they are not more anxious than the above type to enter a contest that involves hardships and sacrifice to them. If the non-member has any substitute for strikes to defend an industrial right, or right an industrial wrong he should get into an organization that covers his craft and advocate it. While

it must be acknowledged that striking is a crude weapon in an acute industrial situation, it is about the principal one that labor has at the present time, but through organized thought they are gradually finding other methods to better conditions. To those who oppose labor organizations in their militant program, we say, just study the primer of modern industrialism, and you will find no Sunday school ethics there. It will convince you that aggressive weapons are necessary. The organized workman, no less than you would like to see an industrial order where fairness and sober reasoning would predominate, but they must meet conditions as they are, and not as they wish. No sensible member of organized labor courts strife, but there may, and occasions have arisen where conditions of employment become intolerable, and strife under such is preferable to despotism and injustice. Further, there is no more immunity from strife outside of labor organizations than there is inside of them, as some of the most bitter industrial warfare has broken out in unorganized industries and communities, and it makes but little difference if you are a member of a labor organization or a nonmember, strikes are likely to come your way and leave you the choice of getting into them in a manly way defending your rights, or often filling the detested part of a "strike breaker" burying your manhood. Besides, if you are consistent, then associate yourself with your craft in an organized way, for the stronger the labor organization the more it lessens the chance of strikes.

They are not benencial-this is a pretext put forward by some individuals that Tails to the lot or the organizer to meet. This mumsy excuse for non-membership is usually given by one wno imagines that all human progress comes without human exort. My friend, your reasoning is rebutted by the evidence of employers themselves, many of whom would wish that your assertion were true. The falsity of it is disclosed by simple observation, if you will take the trouble to observe; perhaps you are a living example of bettered wages and working conditions that proves your pretext to bordering close to prevarication. It would be rather a sad condition for yourself and others if there were no restraint on greed, fostered as it is by modern industrial codes based in the battle for accumulation of wealth, and the desire to amass the same at the expense of others. Labor organizations have bettered conditions, it is bettering them today, slowly perhaps, but you must not fail to remember that wrongs rooted in customs are not changed as quickly as you flip a waffle iron. It takes time, it takes effort, and it looks a little selfish for you to withhold yours. If the present industrial system should remain intact, and by unforeseen and unfortunate chance all organized labor should pass out of existence, you would be among the first to bewail its passing and plead for its return.

excuse non

Dissatisfaction-Others membership on the plea of dissatisfaction and despair, asserting that little or nothing is gained. This is usually an ex-member who has a very limited knowledge of labor's problems of the past or the present. He labors under the impression that the simple placing of his name on the membership roll will bring showers of "manna" from an employer's heaven, and failing to realize his wishes he permits his membership to lapse and becomes a double barreled fault finder. He is on par with the little boy who places his name on a school roll and labors under the impression that this simple act will

bring him an education without any fur

ther effort on his part. There will never be a day when improved conditions for the toiler will grow on bushes, and the simple act or paying dues will be all that is necessary to entitle the payer to inuiscriminately pluck them. Between your desires and your realizations there will always be a wide gulf, but you run a better chance of reducing this to smaller proportions by remaining inside and collectively boosting than going outside and individually knockng.

Another apologist is the individual that has no objection to the fundamental principles of labor organization, but he will not become a member because he differs in tactics and local business principles. In some cases it is too conservative, in others too radical, while not a few want it revolutionary; some wish to form certain alliances with other organizations, some to cut loose from alliances already formed. To these all we can say is get inside, advocate your ideals. Labor organizations, like all other organizations of modern society, want men with ideals. Try and convince the majority by reason, logic and argument that your opinions and methods are superior to accepted ones. If you fail to do so then remain an objecting minority. The latter is a healthy adjunct to any organization, and not entirely without power. It is childlike to display a feeling of "pique." It is similar to the petulent little one that takes her dishes and goes home refusing to play because she cannot have her own unrestrained way. A strong and manly man never adopts such a plan. The day may come when the majority will rally around your ideal, and your opinion of the dissenter who carried his dissent to non-membership then might not look good in print, but he would occupy no more a ridiculous position than you do now. Organized labor has made mistakes; they will do so again. So has organized business, organized fraternities, so have we all made them, and you are making one when you strain at the shadow of tactics, and permit the substance of fundamentals to pass without your protec

1

tion. A little study will convince you that your reasons are very shallow ones.

FEAR.

The most mournful human to meet is the non-member who remains apart for the reason he is afraid. He will not say so in so many words but actions often speak louder than words in his case. He has been told that to assert his right to membership would handicap him in promotion. He was threatened with the decoration of "Improved Order of The Can," and for that reason he would sooner you would pass him up, and let the other fellow enlist in the army of industrial defense. This unfortunate is not worth much to any cause. If human progress depended on this type we would still be back in the primitive state digging roots and killing serpents for our midday meal. When you meet the above don't be afraid to give him a few parting kicks, he will never return them, and to point a pop-gun at him would make a new record in the sprinting world. It is perhaps as well if he is passed up-he fills a place in the industrial world even if the place comes close to being represented by a cipher.

One more of a few that is left over, is the traitor despised by both employer and employe alike. The industrial Dr. Jekyll, and Mr. Hyde, who figures that while the many are trying to better conditions by asserting their manhood, "I will try better myself by burying mine," one who is always on the alert for inside news, to sell for a mess of preference pottage, who will betray his fellow workman today, and if necessary his employer tomorrow, and in time be honored by neither. The best cure for this poor specimen is social ostracism. If you give him anything let it be a vacant stare or a gold brick. The one who writes his name alongside "Judas Iscariot" deserves no better.

CONCLUSION.

Brother Worker-Strife in the economic world is not confined to your short passing life. The struggles of the workers and their sacrifices cover the pages of history, and this will continue as long

as conflicting economic classes exist. No matter how much we may pride ourselves that the present state of organized society is superior to those of the past, man's inhumanity to man based in the struggle for accumulation still exists. The competitive order, that strife-breeding incubator that arrays man against man, group against group, and nation against nation, impresses its results on the human family with force today. Individual gain is the predominating feature of industry, where production is the incident, and profit the object, and where profits tend to a maximum, and wages to a minimum unless met by a counter force of an aroused public as the consumer, or outraged workers as the producers. Industry is not overburdened with altruism. "The Golden Rule" plays little part in business ethics. As wage earners we have a commodity to sell and (as stated before) capitalistic industry is founded on the principle of profits. Sell your finished wares at the highest possible price, buy your raw materials at the lowest possible cost. For this underlying purpose great organizations are coming to life every day in the business world. dividualism has almost ceased in production. Everywhere you turn you see men organizing for all purposes, finding concentrated action productive of greater results for protective or aggressive reasons, and the worker's individual chance of securing justice from highly organized corporate business is about on par with the fate of "King Kanute" in his tidal experience. A single workman can easily be dispensed with, or he may cease work without removing a single harsh condition, or improving the position for a follower. It is only by collective or organized action that wrongs may be righted, and progress made. No matter how much workers' organizations may be condemned as aggressive bodies, they must be acknowledged as a necessity as a defensive measure. In this great struggle of industrial improvement all should carry their share of the burden. Failure of some to do so only makes the task harder for those who carry it. There is

In