Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. J. C. Monaghan, United States consul at Chemnitz, in "Consular Reports, August, 1894," in speaking of German technical and trade schools, which system he had studied critically, takes occasion to say: "A graduate from such a school brings to the shop an enthusiasm and attention, a knowledge and skill, that aid his employer and himself. The division of labor to-day is so complete that apprentices in large shops have very seldom an opportunity to learn a trade thoroughly. They learn only a partspecial branch. Of the whole they have hardly an idea. In small shops, masters seldom teach a lad much before the last year. The technical school puts it into the boy's power to learn everything, and puts it out of the master's power to keep much from him.

- some

The purpose of the school is to bring out and build up all that is best in a boy's nature, to inspire a love for his work, to give him just such knowledge as will make him understand and do even the most difficult work.

Prof. T. H. Huxley, F. R. S., in the second edition of "Social Diseases and Worse Remedies," 1891, under the head of "The Struggle for Existence in Human Society," takes occasion to remark that "technical education, in the strict sense, has become a necessity for two reasons: The old apprenticeship system has broken down, partly by reason of the changed conditions of industrial life, and partly because trades have ceased to be 'crafts,' the traditional secrets whereof the master handed down to his apprentices. Invention is constantly changing the face of our industries, so that 'use and want,' 'rule of thumb,' and the like, are gradually losing their importance, while that knowledge of principles which alone can deal successfully with changed conditions is becoming more and more valuable. Socially, the 'master' of four or five apprentices is disappearing in favor of the 'employer' of forty, or four hundred, or four thousand ‘hands,' and the odds and ends of technical knowledge, formerly picked up in a shop, are not, and cannot be, supplied in the factory. The instruction formerly given by the master must, therefore, be more than replaced by the systematic teaching of the technical school."

I am well aware that America has several high-grade technical schools which are second to none in the world, but they are reached only by the comparative few. What I would urge-realizing the urgent necessity--is the establishment in every city, town and village of technical schools as part of the ordinary public school system. In every instance, the number as well as the elaborateness of the schools could be determined as best suited to the population and its resources. Where day technical schools would be too costly, or where most of the young people were already engaged in daily labor, there, at least, night schools could and should be established, and in which a short series of lessons on topics of special interest to cach locality should be taught. High-grade technical schools are certainly invaluable, but they are very clearly beyond the reach of the great mass of the people who have to earn their bread as soon as possible, and, as Huxley

emphasizes, we must, therefore, look to the primary and intermediary technical school classes, and especially to evening classes, as the great instrument for the best teaching of the present and future artisan.

The Labor Movement in the South. BY JERE DENNIS.

We

I cannot write of "The Labor Movement in the South" without writing of the labor movement of the world, for, from my point of view, there is no difference in labor in the south from labor in the north, from labor in the east, from labor in the west. are all controlled by the same laws and surrounded, virtually, by the same conditions. We are all dominated by brutish self and worse than brutish ignorWe are all swayed by the shimmering gleam of America's new national flower-the golden-rod, and never grow weary of yielding up our inalienable birthright for the proverbial mess of pottage.

ance.

"He who holds a mirror to your face,

And, hiding none, is not afraid to trace
Your faults-your smallest blemishes within;
Who friendly warns, reproves you if you sin-
Although it seems not so he is your friend.
But he who, ever flattering, gives you praise-
Never rebukes, nor censures, nor delays
To come with eagerness to grasp your hand
And pardon you, ere pardon you demand-

He is your enemy, though he seem your friend." Were I to write of "The Labor Movement in the South" as I see it and know it to be, I would bring down the bitterest censure upon my head, and speedily get it where the chicken got the axe -in the neck. And why? Because labor in the south, like labor everywhere else, demands that its advocates tackle the other fellow. Labor here, like labor in the north, is always downtrodden, always overworked and underpaid. It is the oppressed; it has all the right and justice on its side-the other party, none.

Take the industrial centers of the south, and labor is about as well organized and is in as good, if not better, condition than similar places in the north. In Birmingham, Atlanta, Montgomery, Mobile, New Orleans, Galveston, Chattanooga, Nashville, Memphis -everywhere, the south has perhaps as little actual poverty and destitution to the square acre as any part of America, and while we cannot yet boast of a Gompers, of a Foster, Prescott, Penna, McBride, McGuire, Morgan-of an Eva McDonald-Valesch-we are the boys of the trenches, and the naked breasts of the southern workingmen are as boldly presented to the battle as ever the steel corselet of a Norman knight.

Negro labor and the convict curse may make a few minor differences with us here, but the great principles of unionism are the same, and we must not lose the substance by grasping at the shadow. Here, as elsewhere, sad to relate, labor supports too many saloons, too many makers and dealers in "scab' goods, too many professional men and business men and "peanut" politicians who are the sworn enemies of organized labor and the paid advocates of the banker, the boodler and the aristocrat. No sensible

[ocr errors]

man can for a moment deny this. Take away the patronage of southern workmen from the saloons and they would soon close up for want of business. Take organized labor's patronage away from "scab" goods and the business and professional men who are ever ready to arrange themselves on the side of capital, and the "product" would soon become extinct. Let labor vote for itself instead of the corporation and gold-bug attorneys, and it would soon have no cause to complain of 'unjust laws." Let labor put its money down into its jeans for a few years instead of squandering it in the saloon; attend the meetings of its trade unions instead of the civil and criminal courts, the races, the theater, the democratic and republican hustings, and it would soon, indeed, be king.

"

But will it do this? Not much. In a certain industry in Birmingham there is over two hundred organized workmen, all the time clamoring for their rights, grumbling at their hard condition, and, to hear them talk, you would think them the very essence of unionism. Yet, they have not learned, and will not learn, its first principles. Go to the "commissary" store near their works and the manager has never had any calls for a union-made cigar, a union hat, pantaloons, or coat. Follow them into the city, and you will see them swilling scab beer, having their hair cut and shaving done by scab barbers, and their dirty linen washed by scab laundry workers. A labor paper in their midst is a bird of rare plumage-they are totally indifferent as to whether it succeeds or fails—and yet they are good union men, oh, yes!

Take the vast army of local railway employes. Are they affiliated with the rest of organized labor? Do they patronize union barbers, wear union hats, union clothes, live in union-made houses, and patronize merchants employing only union salesmen? And when it comes to vote, are they democrats, or republicans, or union men with labor measures to the front and voting for the best interests of themselves and their fellows? We have not heard of it if they are.

We read in holy writ that great multitudes followed the Man of Galilee, strewed branches in the way in honor of His entrance to Jerusalem, hung, day following day, upon his words-such as man never before spake-and partook, to the number of five thousand and better, of His bread. But, alas! when the scenes of Calvary drew near, betrayal, denial, desertion, met • Him at every turn. When the sacrificial season comes such is the fate of principle so far up to date.

Labor in the south has not yet been true to itself. The armies of the scab employer are recruited from its class, and it fights against itself whenever invited to do so. In every struggle for better conditions it

has been the workman himself who has struck the deadly blow to his fellow-toiler. When half-starved labor strikes for living wages, who is it that takes the places of the strikers? When the sheriff and "best citizens' call on the governor for troops to suppress these riotous "vagrants"-who elected this sheriff by their votes? Who supports these "best citizens" with

their patronage? It is dog eat dog-a struggle of labor against labor.

I would suggest that organized labor be put upon the same basis as the United States army. When a workman joins his labor union let him enlist for five years and place himself under the same military discipline in all trade disputes as prevails in the regular army on the eve of battle. If there are any deserters, spies or traitors found in the labor camp, shoot them, or swing them to the nearest limb without a moment's notice. A strike under this system would always win, and they could make their military leaders the executive officers and legislators of the different municipalities, the states and nation. Put the railroads, the telegraph, the banks, the issue of money, and all natural monopolies, into their own hands-the people; establish the initiative and referendum, and have a democratic and republican form of government, not only in name, but in fact.

I would substitute the co-operative commonwealth for the present system of wage slavery, and have every man a prosperous freeman instead of a cringing serf. Let organized labor but patronize itself, let it but be true to its principles, and, presto-you have the change.

Webb's Valuable Book.

BY M. S. OPPENHEIMER.

"The History of Trade Unionism," by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, is a most interesting and important contribution to labor literature. The present volume -the only one as yet published—contains a mass of facts and information, much of which is entirely inaccesible elsewhere to the general reader. That such a book should be written on such a subject is a sign of the times-trade unions having been almost entirely ignored or anathematized when mentioned at all in literature. The Webbs have given much time and labor to the book and the result is a scholarly and authoritative work. It deals only with the English unions, but as the development of industry is pretty much the same the world over when machines are introduced, Americans may learn a good many lessons from its pages.

There are two distinct threads, or subjects, running through the book, and though these are often closely entangled, and in a history cannot possibly be separated, for the purpose of this article they may better be treated apart. One has to do with parliamentary legislation and action relating to the working class. Much of this parliamentary action has been negative rather than active, being the abolishment of many of the former restrictions upon workmen, which dated mostly from the old Elizabethan acts. Of late years, however, this negative policy has shown a tendency to give way to a more active one. The other deals with the history of the development of trade organizations among manual workers and the marked variations in the gradual growth of the trade union movement, which has alternated between sudden and large accessions in numbers and strength to great losses in both these respects in times of financial depression.

Contrary to the general impression among those who are not special students of the subject, trade unions did not originate in the craft guilds. They began in England in such industries as were early much subdivided, like the clothiers, some fifty years before the first factories were started. Trade unions, say the Webbs, would have existed without the introduction of steam power-not so the trade union movement.

There have been in England three great tidal waves of unionism, the first in 1833-34, the second in 1873-74 and the third in 1889-90. This last wave has not yet quite spent its force, and it is, therefore, impossible to estimate justly its extent and effect. That of 1833-34 was, in many respects, remarkable. The Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, of which Robert Dale Owen was the chief recruiter, appears to have been joined within a few weeks by half a million members, including farm laborers and women. "Shop assistants on the one hand and journeymen chimney sweeps on the other were swept into the vortex.' This early outburst was distinguished by great aggressiveness of policy, and swiftly fell apart, for it had neither funds, organization nor a just appreciation of the employers' fighting strength. In the ensuing long period of depression there were gradually built up the great Trade Friendly Societies, like the Amalgamated Engineers, whose constitution for twenty years served as an unquestioned model for the trade union world. Somewhat later the powerful organizations of the coal miners and the cotton operatives began to become a force in the trade union movement. These organizations, both being geographically very compact, united neither friendly benefits nor insurance with their unions. Both kinds of organizations have passed through difficult times successfully, and both may now be considered to have become integral parts of the structure of a modern industrial state. The great financial depression of '79, following upon the great. trade union development of '73-'74, revealed the sectionalism that then dominated the trade union world. The years '73-'74 marked the complete recognition of the unions by the great employers, but their victory brought results which largely neutralized its advantages. The men gained their point at the cost of adopting the intellectual opinions of their opponents, and fell gradually and insensibly to accepting the capitalist axiom, that wages must fluctuate according to the capitalists' profits, and even with every variation of market prices.. The compulsory maintenance in good times and bad of the workman's standard of life was thus gradually replaced by faith in a scale of wages sliding up and down according to the commercial speculations of the controllers of the market. In all industrial matters the trade union world was broken into struggling groups destitute of any common purpose.

Out of this confusion order began to grow again with the gradual spread of the doctrines of "economic rent" and of socialism among the rank and file of the unions. A revolt came against the exclusiveness of the great friendly trade societies, and the latest development of trade unionism-1889-'90-was marked by

the application of a new principle. Hitherto workers had expected success just in proportion to their strength, now the weak were successful, because of their weakness, through the intervention of the public, as in the famous strike of the match girls and the dockers. Thus far does the historical development of English trades unionism carry us.

On the subject of legal and parliamentary action, the history is full of striking episodes. Beginning with the repeal of the laws against combinations among workingmen, a repeal largely due to Francis Place, the master tailor, the ablest politician of his time, the story takes us through the long struggle of the unions for legal recognition as corporate bodies, and the battle over the criminal laws amendment act down to the question which is still unsettled-the employers' liability bill-and the injustice implied in the term " common employment." The difference in the position of the workers now to what it was at the beginning of the seventy years of struggle is very striking. When the committee was appointed by the house in 1824 to examine into the combination laws, Francis Place was refused admission to the room where the committee met, on the double ground that he was neither a member of the house nor a gentleman. Now we find workingmen sitting in Parliament and occupying a prominent position in royal commissions and on the London county council. And this is only the outward sign of the real change brought about in part by the solidarity of the working class and the development of the trade-union movement.

The Webbs close the last chapter with this sentence. It applies, of course, to English unions and conditions, and yet, minor details apart, it is not without interest for thoughtful Americans:

"How far it is possible by the development of trade councils, the reform of the trade union congress, the increased efficiency of the parliamentary committee, the growth of trade union representation in the house of commons, or, finally, by the creation of any new federal machinery, to counteract the fundamental sectionalism of trade union organization, to supplement the specialized trade officials by an equally specialized civil service of working-class politicians, and thus to render the trade union world, with its million of electors and its leadership of labor, an effective political force in the state, is, on the whole, the most momentous question of contemporary politics."

Woman's Work in the Labor Movement. BY MRS. E. P. FOSTER.

What

Perhaps, to many, the very first thought suggested by that title is: What does it all amount to? has it accomplished?

In answer to both questions, I would say: In one sense, nothing, and in another sense, everything. It is undeniably true that while the churches and various benevolent and charitable enterprises owe their very existence and maintenance to women, yet the labor movement has always had to depend almost wholly upon the men to push it along. This is attributable mainly to the fact that the women of the masses

know nothing and care less about the burning questions of the day, the government and conditions under which they live. Their horizon is limited to the four walls of a tenement house, their life nothing but a continual treadmill round of hopeless, aimless worry and work, and they, themselves, are but fagged-out specimens of humanity, too tired and listless to read, investigate or even think. In addition to this, in most instances, the "men folks" of their families never deign to take them into their thoughts and plans, for women should know their place and keep it. But let a strike come, and then how bitterly they complain that "the women won't help'm out," and they "can't see why it is, only that the women don't know much, anyhow."

On the other hand, the women of the classes, the promoters and managers of large public undertakings, are those who, as a rule, have more or less time and means to command and utilize as they see fit. They read, study and investigate; they understand something of the world and what it contains; they are ever ready to aid whatever savors of the religious or philanthropic, even though it be slightly unconventional to do so. Moreover, the men of their homes often take a sort of pride in their endeavors instead of sneering at them. All this they can do and not lose social rank or prestige, which would almost inevitably be their lot should they become the champions of labor's cause. Not only this, but, worst of all, full well they know that often the very ones whom they sought to benefit would look upon them with distrust and suspicion, and that their most earnest, self-sacrificing efforts would be misconstrued. True, there are a few women who have braved everything to help the propaganda, to further the organization and bring about results. There are more, many more, who have tried it-for years, possibly-and at last, with broken health and spirits, discovered that, after all, they had been engaged in a thankless task. Do you say that this is a pessimistic view? It may be, but it is the exact status of woman's work in the labor movement to-day and yesterday.

What has here been briefly outlined and suggested indicates the great, underlying cause which clogs the social progress and industrial development of the race. The worn, weary workers in reform and organized labor are wont to exclaim, "It goes so slow-why can't we get people to see it?" It is not so strange when we stop and think of the mistaken efforts made to elevate the masses. Agitate, educate, organize, co-operate, has been the watchword for men only. Women, unlike their brothers, have not yet learned to act as a unit on any one thing. They usually consider "a union" as a dreadful mystery that exacts dues, orders strikes, talks shorter hours with more pay, and takes John away from home evenings.

The social structure is so warped and wabbly and unsightly because its builders have overlooked the value of each component part to form a perfect whole. It is an old but true saying that "the stream cannot rise higher than its source," and just so long as men

are born of women, just so long can they ill afford to regard and keep them as mere tools or toys and inferior beings. We see in our present social and economic conditions the legitimate outcome of the timehonored teaching that women are dear-alas! to the purse as well as the heart-clinging, ivy-vine creatures with brains that can comprehend only gossip, housework, children and dress, the sum total of their allotted sphere. When times are good and all is well, the workingmen have wanted no assistance from those who wear petticoats, and have given them distinctly to understand it. But when trouble arises, or they are out of employment, the women and children must bear the brunt of it all without a murmur, and be ready to go out and support the family. If this is not done cheerfully, domestic quarrels ensue, and the workmen follow the old Adamic trait of blaming their wives, with the usual disastrous consequences. If, on the contrary, it is done, and the wife, daughter or sister, thus driven by circumstances, obtains a situation in the store, shop or factory, and holds her own where the natural bread-winner has failed, by her honest, faithful, efficient work, she arouses antagonism by her very success, and the cry is raised, "the girls and women are crowding us out." What reasonable creatures some men are, to be sure! Men and women on life's journey should toil hand in hand and side by side, neither one assuming the supremacy, and, if the men cannot keep up with the procession because the women are in it—if they are sɔ lazy, incompetent and unmanly as that, the sooner they drop out the better.

All things considered, it is really surprising that the labor movement has made the progress it has. In the present great struggle for the emancipation of "wage slaves," for the betterment of the hewers of wood and drawers of water, discouraged ones are apt to say, what has become of the independent, self-reliant, libertyloving spirit of our pioneer ancestors who founded this republic? This generation readily and indifferently forges its own fetters.

Not until we have free, intelligent, self-respecting motherhood and welcome children, fewer in number but better cared for-children who possess their natural birthright to a good physical, mental and moral constitution; not until pre-natal conditions are more fully understood and post-natal environment more carefully considered will humanity evolve upon a plane of justice, altruism and liberty. Thus far, the women of the masses, forgetting the law of supply and demand, have continually contributed an overproduction of hands, until the price of labor has become a drug in the market. While we talk about restricting immigration, it would be still wiser to restrict our population, and the great common people can do this themselves without waiting for any enactments of congress or concessions on the part of capitalists or corporations.

We may not live to see even the dawn of that glorious day when all this may be realized, but we can each do our share in spreading the light of truth as it is revealed to us.

[blocks in formation]

The people of the United States are as patient and law-abiding as any in the world, yet they do not believe that the judges of the supreme court are possessed of such infallible powers of discernment and judgment that they cannot err in their interpretation of constitutional law; hence, a vigorous kick on the part of the people against supreme court rulings, as witnessed in the income tax law and in the Debs case, must be expected every time that it is invited by decisions that abridge the rights and privileges of the people upon technical grounds.

In the decision of the United States supreme court upon the income tax law, the dissenting judges voiced their sentiments of disapproval in such vigorous language that the opinion of

the majority was not calculated to either inspire confidence in the hearts of the people or to increase their respect for the supreme court.

The additional fact that Judge Shiras changed his position in the last decision from that which he occupied in the first decision upon the income tax law, is a matter that gives rise to grave suspicion on part of the people—a suspicion that has occasioned much criticism unfavorable to the judge.

Governor Tillman, of South Carolina, in speaking upon the sudden change of opinion on the part of Judge Shiras, said:

"The supreme court, after one justice had slept on it and considered it, reversed himself in three weeks and declared the law unconstitutional. Did they buy him? I don't say so. I think, like Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Carlisle, that he is the victim of his environments. He could not stand the social pressure of the Rothschilds and Belmonts and other millionaires who sat under his mahogany and who invite him out occasionally."

Whether it be true or untrue that Judge Shiras, who is referred to by Governor Tillman, was or is a victim of unfortunate environments, it is evident that his action has aroused a spirit of resentment on the part of the masses of our people.

Labor organizations, however, will gain nothing by merely passing resolutions, or listening to fiery speeches which are denunciatory of the United States supreme court.

We must recognize decisions of the United States supreme court as the law of the land, and, whether it meets with our approval or not, we should acquiesce until such times as its defects can be remedied by statutory or constitutional law.

The great power now conferred upon federal judges in injunction cases can be eliminated, at least it should be restricted to its proper scope by statutory provision at the hands of congress soon after it meets in December next.

Labor organizations in every large city or industrial center should hold mass meetings and by resolution not only call attention to the injury and hardship done to citizen laborers by the law of injunction, as now applied, but demand at the hands of national legislators the passage of a law that will afford us relief and protect the citizen when exercising heretofore recognized constitutional prerogatives.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL VERSUS THE

BREWERY WORKMEN.

Secretary Bechtold, of the National Union of United Brewery Workmen, has appealed to organizations affiliated with the A. F. of L. to protest against the Executive Council, because of its refusal to place a boycott upon sixteen out of the seventeen breweries in Pittsburgh and Allegheny, Pa., and for the decision ren

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »