"Every rise of wages which one body secures by mere exclusive combination represents a certain amount, sometimes a large amount, of injury to the other bodies of workmen." W. STANLEY JEVONS. "The highest form of co-operation is all-inclusive.” "The truth shall make you free." JOHN viii. 32. "The time, however, is past when the friends of human improvement can look with complacency on the attempts of small sections of the community, whether belonging to the laboring or any other class, to organize a separate class interest in antagonism to the general body of laborers." JOHN STUART MILL, "There is a constant danger lest the Spirit of Association should attempt to act against Nature instead of acting with it. There is, for example, a Law - an observed order of facts—in respect to Man, which the working classes too often forget, but which can neither be violated nor neglected with impunity. That Law is the Law of inequality -the various degrees in which the gifts both of Body and of Mind are shared among men. This is one of the most fundamental facts of human nature. Nor is it difficult to see how it should be also one of the most beneficent." THE DUKE OF ARGYLL. VII. COMBINATIONS OF LABOR. THE combination of labor is proper and legitimate. There is a natural esprit de corps and brotherly interest among those whose occupations and experiences are alike. They feel the impulse of the same wholesome ambition, and have similar obstacles with which to contend. Man is a social being. Members of the same profession or handicraft are naturally drawn together, and societies and leagues may be formed for many laudable purposes. Social recreation and entertainment are indispensable among manual laborers, and congeniality in large measure belongs to those of similar habits and pursuits. Co-operation and fraternal interest in cases of misfortune or illness are always noble, but among comrades of the same calling they have a peculiar beauty and propriety. Organization is also useful as a regulative influence in outside relations, especially in negotiations with employers regarding hours, privileges, recreations, and sanitary supervision. There is great profit in reading and literary organizations, lyceums for debate, societies for the promotion of temperance and morals; scientific and trade associations having for their object the increase of technical knowledge in the various arts and professions, all these, and others that might be named, are of great advantage to working men. But in a study of labor organizations as they exist, we are reluctantly forced to conclude that the various commendable purposes above enumerated are largely lacking, and in their place are often installed various abuses of the princi ple of association. While the ideal labor union would be in the highest degree helpful, the actual and existing one is permeated with fallacious theories. It is necessary to note the short-comings of the combination, in order to evolve an ideal therefrom of what it may become. The very mistakes of the actual union have in them an educational influence which is a prophecy of improvement. There is an active evolutionary tendency which makes itself felt, and is even promoted by ferment, agitation, and adverse experi ment. In noticing some mistakes of the conventional labor union we do not oppose the union, but suggest laws and tendencies which, if understood, would transform it from what it is to what it should be. The associative principle is good, but its application is at fault. Natural Law, being normal, is truthful. The plain facts are what the laboring man greatly needs. His prejudices have been played upon to his own detriment. Those who stimulate his envy and antagonism are not his real friends. They pose as his champions, not by showing him his honorable and indispensable place in society, but by turning him against his own interest as well as that of the community. Their mistaken, though often honest efforts develop and increase his dependency so that he becomes the victim of a false philosophy, and inevitably realizes loss, both moral and pecuniary. Let us, in order, note some of the fundamental misapplications of the associative principle. First. Their spirit and temper are antagonistic to capital, or accumulated labor. Second. Their influence is against the exercise of individual industry and excellence, and tends toward dependency. Third. Personal freedom of action and contract is surrendered to the control of others, whose judgment is often faulty and prejudiced. Fourth. They are tyrannical in their action toward all unorganized laborers. Fifth. Their logical tendency and influence are in the general direction of a levelling coercive socialism. Let us examine these points in order, as above mentioned. First. Their spirit and temper are antagonistic to capital, or accumulated labor. The idea of the necessary existence of this sentimental enmity has been industriously promulgated; and this, combined with a degree of jealousy in human nature toward those whom we imagine to be better off than ourselves, has given popular currency to this feeling. It has become such a habit to speak of the "interest of labor," and the “interest of capital," assuming that each is opposed to the other, that we adopt the practice without thinking of its unreasonableness. There is no natural antagonism, because both are mutual allies and necessary parts of one unit. When one suffers, both suffer; and when one is prosperous, both are. There is no more logic in a quarrel between them than there would be between the right hand and the left, or between two wheels of the same machine. Such a conflict is purely an invention. As well imagine a war between bricklaying and commerce, or industry and banking. Persons may disagree, but occupations, conditions, and truths, never; for they are all interdependent parts of one unitary system. There are many leaders, agitators, and politicians whose interests lie directly in the line of keeping up this harmful and expensive sentiment. The machinery of labor organizations furnishes them with many opportunities to gratify ambition, love of notoriety, sense of power and authority, and to gain financial benefit and political capital. It is not claimed that all are influenced by such considerations. We are discussing principles, and not men. No doubt some are interested in this work who are conscientious, and sin cerely feel that they are really aiding "the cause of labor." Here comes in a principle before noted. With one error, for a basis, a whole group of erroneous relations are evolved to harmonize with it so as to form a system. Assuming that capital and labor are enemies, the logical result would be combination, offensive and defensive, with close ranks, thorough discipline, and perfect equipment for warfare. If there were no accumulated capital, there would be no factories, mills, railroads, machinery, or wages. How can capital be our antagonist when its absence would throw us back into a state of barbarism? Without it, every comfort, luxury, and improvement would be wanting. Its enterprise enlarges every field of operation, increases the demand for labor, and enhances its market value. Let The sentimental theorists who write on political economy fail to see that their teachings are contrary to the foundation principles of economic science, for the reason that their business education has been entirely theoretical. It would be an interesting experiment if some of these writers on "Labor Problems" would embark in real business. one of them take the management of a large manufacturing corporation, another the control of some railroad system, and a third assume the direction of affairs in a large importing or wholesale house. If consistent, they would conduct these various enterprises on the sentimental basis. In hiring help, they would not be governed by the market price of labor, but pay inefficient men the same as those of the best grade; or rather, perhaps, the price should be fixed by the local "district organization." They would pay ten hours' wages for eight hours' work, and employ none but union men, even if others were starving. The mercantile house would handle nothing but union goods, even if just as good non-union articles could be had for ten per cent less. The railroad manager would have no rolling-stock that was not made by unionists; and if his switchmen |