[Sidenote: Organized labor seeks to prevent compet.i.tion among workers]

1. _The union's first aim is to get control of all the labor force in the market, and to minimize compet.i.tion among workers._ Every labor federation aims to extend its control to every branch of its trade. A sense of wrong is one of the strongest forces to bring the workers into the organization. The appeal to a common interest is effective in times of great grievance, as it was effective in the dangerous times of the American Revolution, though failing during the Confederation. The unwilling are first persuaded, then coerced by threats, by petty persecutions, by the most cruel of all peaceful weapons, social ostracism, and finally by personal violence. The "public opinion" and cla.s.s feeling fostered among workers by their organization are a.n.a.logous to the sense of patriotism and loyalty in the country at large, and at times displace it, as is seen in the opposition to the militia and to the maintenance of public order at times of strikes. The individual who declines to enter the union is denounced as a traitor and made to feel the scorn of his a.s.sociates. When all these measures fail, pressure is brought to bear upon the employer to get him to force the unwilling workers into the union.

[Sidenote: The union seeks to secure the full compet.i.tive wage]

[Sidenote: And as much more as possible]

2. _Its next aim is to use collective in the place of individual bargaining, to force as much as the compet.i.tive wage, and more if possible._ The term collective bargaining has been much used to describe bargaining between a group of labor leaders, the delegated representatives of the workingmen, and a group of employers or directors. It is sometimes claimed that all the trade-union seeks is to put the workman on an equality with the employer in bargaining, enabling him to get all he would if compet.i.tion were free on both sides. It is said that organized labor simply prevents the employer from following the maxim of Napoleon to "divide and conquer," from meeting his employees one by one and forcing his own terms upon them. But the most effective argument in organizing the trade-union is that it forces a higher wage, more than the market would warrant. It is sometimes a.s.sumed by labor leaders that compet.i.tive wages would be very low, almost starvation wages, and anything above that level is credited to the work of the union; while in other cases where the wages are already large, the purpose frankly avowed is to limit the labor supply in the particular trade and to force a monopoly wage by any means possible.

One's opinion of trade-unions is likely to differ according as they work in one or the other of these ways. The impartial onlooker sympathizes with the efforts of the trade-unions in so far as they serve merely to put the workers on an equality with the employers in bargaining. The public wants to see "fair play," and up to a certain point the union is merely a device to get fair play. But if the union is a device to defeat compet.i.tion, to force artificially high wages, it will be judged differently. The public readily sees that if the unions force more than a fair and open market affords, it is rarely at the expense of the employer; that in the long run it is at the expense of the purchasing public itself, including the unprivileged workmen shut out from the monopoly of labor.

[Sidenote: The issue of the closed shop vs. the open shop]

3. _In order to accomplish their ends, the trade-unions seek to control their employers' business in various ways._ They demand, first, that no non-union men shall be employed even at union wages; they demand that the employer shall help them to force his employees into the unions. In this very usual demand for the "closed shop" or "union shop" the public can see very little justice. On this point, nearly always, unions forfeit in a strike the sympathy of the public; yet the unions a.s.sert that it is almost absolutely necessary to gain this point in order to carry out their objects. If a union and a non-union man work side by side there are many ways in which the employer may make the union man suffer. If business slackens, it is likely to be the union man that is discharged; if any preference is given, it is to the non-union man.

Certainly all will agree that if the unions are to get the strength to enforce _all_ their demands it is essential that they make good this claim which leaves the employer almost helpless. Yet it certainly is not essential to the accomplishing of valuable services for the members of the union. The educational and mutual-benefit features are attained without this means; and much experience shows that, if their cause is strong, the organized men can carry with them a large proportion of the workers and the sympathy of the public in a contest for higher wages. It never has seemed to any considerable portion of the public any more desirable that organized labor through its officers should be able to dictate to employees, than that employers should crush the workmen. It is by just this a.s.sumption that union advocates beg the question of the "union shop."

[Sidenote: Other limitations put upon industry by unions]

Further, the unions direct and control the employment of labor, often limit the number of apprentices in a trade, and a.s.sume to determine who shall enjoy the privilege of learning it. They limit the output, fix the maximum amount, and forbid the use of labor-saving machinery. Whenever the unions are charged with these acts, labor leaders either deny the facts or avoid giving a direct answer, but there is no doubt that the charge is true in many ways and in many cases. The requirement that each special kind of work shall be controlled by a special trade, and disputes between rival trades, for which their jealousies are responsible, give rise to great annoyance, expense, and loss to employers and to the entire public.

[Sidenote: The strike and the boycott]

4. _The strike is a threat and a mode of attack to enforce the demands of the union._ To most newly organized laborers the union appeals mainly as an instrument for striking, for threatening the employer or for making him suffer. When a new union is formed, it is nearly always dedicated by a strike, which is the simultaneous stopping of work by a number of workers. A strike is intended to force the employer to grant the wages and conditions demanded. Its effectiveness lies in the injury which it occasions or threatens in the stopping of machinery, the ruin of material, the loss of custom, and the failure to complete contracts undertaken. Its success being dependent on the inability of the employer to fill the places of the strikers, their energies are bent on persuading or coercing other workers from taking employment. There are many ways of coercing workers without personal violence. Public opinion does much, and probably the severest of all coercive measures is the social ostracism of the worker. What may be called the endless-chain boycott is an excommunication, without measure or limit, of the non-union worker and of every one in any way befriending him or the employer. So far as in their power lies, the enraged strikers dissolve the very bonds of society, brother casts off brother, and mother disowns son. The unhappy conditions in the coal regions in 1902 rivaled the tragedies of civil war. A reasonable use of the boycott, refusal to maintain social relations with the person who offends one, is doubtless a part of personal liberty; but the boycott, as experience shows, has moral limits, and it should have strict legal limits. Its use beyond the moderate limit of the first degree of personal relations is antisocial to the degree of criminality, whether it be used as the weapon of organized workers or of organized wealth.

[Sidenote: Violence in strikes is mob law]

When peaceable means fail, often there is a recourse to violence both against the employer and his property and against the non-union men. The evils of violence in strikes often are tardily recognized by the public, whose sympathy up to a certain point is with the striker as "the under dog." It is slow to realize that strike violence is mob-law. Whenever men of one group a.s.sume the right to coerce forcibly and to wreak their hatred against one of their fellow-workers, it is a blow at political liberty. No free society can safely go the first step in permitting one group of men to usurp control over others in this way.

[Sidenote: Costliness of strikes]

5. _The great losses caused by strikes are the penalty of an unsolved industrial problem._ The losses to workers in wages, to employers and to investors in income and property, and to the public in interruption of business, aggregate an enormous sum. It is, however, impossible to estimate it at all exactly, as the losses are in many cases indirect and intangible. The strikers are concerned not with the balance of total losses and total gains to society as a whole, but with the net gain that in the long run accrues to them. It is true that there are indirect gains not easily calculable, as the advance of wages made to avoid a strike while the lesson of the consequences is still fresh. Opinion among workingmen is not a unit as to the value of strikes. A few years ago it seemed safe to say that strikes were declining as compared with the period of the early eighties. It is probably true, as is often said, that as laborers become educated they put less faith in strikes. The epidemic of labor troubles, marking the years from 1899 to 1903, gave no evidence of a decrease in the use of strikes, yet many of these were due to the recent organization in various trades. The coal strike of 1902, though doubtless due to real grievances, was opposed by the officers of the union, an unusually capable set of men, but the more violent and discordant elements overruled the more pacific counsels. The public is perhaps as favorable as it has ever been to the cause of labor, but it appears to have less patience with strikes than it had fifteen years ago, and strikes usually fail if not backed by public opinion. The public has not as yet thought out consistent conclusions on the question of the rights of the union. It is just now much impressed with the value of arbitration. As experience destroys the unsound sentiments, and divides the wise from the unwise measures, a peaceable solution of industrial differences must and will be found.

-- III. COMBINATION AND WAGES

[Sidenote: Wages are raised by a labor monopoly]

1. _Wages in particular industries often are maintained above the compet.i.tive rate._ The older economic writers were somewhat unsympathetic with trade-unions, and were even inclined to deny that organization could be helpful in any way in raising wages. This view, it must now be recognized, was mistaken, and overlooked the hindrances to compet.i.tion and the effective economic forces that organization can bring into play. The sympathies of most men favor the wage-earner so strongly that they hesitate to express an opinion in any way unfavorable to his efforts to raise wages. But the view of the economic theorist as to the services of the union cannot be as roseate as is that of the union labor leader. The general proposition, however, is applicable, that wherever it is possible to limit supply, prices may be raised. If men fitted to do a certain work are not permitted to do it, labor in the special industry becomes more scarce and consequently more highly valued. This involves the result that some men are forced to remain where they get lower wages than they could earn if free to act. The temporary need of the employer may enable the union to force from him a division of his profits. If the trade-union watches its opportunity and takes occasion to strike when a failure to fill orders would cause him great loss, it may compel him to pay for a time more than the normal value of the labor. It may well be doubted whether such action on the part of labor is generous, fair, honest, or in the long run wise; but that it may be immediately effective cannot be denied. By the principle of complementary goods an essential kind of labor can be given an artificially high value, if its supply can be controlled. If only the labor that is ready and willing to come in to take the place of the strikers can for a time be kept out, wages may be fixed practically according to monopoly principles, later to be discussed in connection with capitalistic organization.

[Sidenote: Exaggerated claims made for trade-unions]

2. _Trade-unions can, in various but limited ways, set in motion economic forces to increase the productiveness of labor._ It is difficult to take a moderate view of trade-unions; it is easier to go to one extreme or the other. In a book by Trant, reprinted from the English edition and circulated by the American Federation of Labor as representing its theory and claims, all the advances in wages that have been made are said to be due to the trade-unions. This claim is believed by many besides the members of trade-unions. The thought is sometimes expressed even by social students that but for the trade-unions wages in America would be the same as in 1850. Many well-known facts should cause such an opinion to be accepted with hesitation, to say the least. Only about one tenth of the workers in England are unionists and of the twenty-two million workers in the United States, far less than ten per cent. are organized. Can it be maintained that one tenth of the labor supply fixes the value of all? In many lines where labor is not organized, as in teaching, clerical positions, professional and domestic service, wages have risen even more than in organized trade. The evidence advanced to support the extreme claim is that wages are higher in some organized trades than in other unorganized trades requiring the same grade of laborers. Trant says that "where there are no unions wages should be lower. This is exactly the case"; and he quotes: "Wherever we find union principles ignored, a low rate of wages prevails and the reverse where organization is perfect." But he later explains in part this difference: "The union men are the best workmen and often employers pay a man more than union wages. This is not surprising as no man can be a union carpenter unless he be in good health, have worked a certain number of years at his trade, be a good workman, of steady habits and good moral character."

[Sidenote: Certain unquestionable reasons why union wages should be higher]

If this be true, it is in accordance with strict compet.i.tive principles that, as the elite of the trade, they should get higher wages than those outside. Moreover the unions exist mainly in the more populated places where cost of living, wages, and all prices range higher than in the towns. A much higher standard of work prevails in the cities, both among union and non-union men, and the old men and the inefficient drift away to the smaller towns and the places where wages are lower. Many of the differences are explicable without taking any account of the union. So far as unions tend toward intelligence, education, sobriety, efficiency, fuller and fairer compet.i.tion, they are economic factors in all branches of industry, and it cannot be doubted that they do work in some measure in all these ways. So far also as they strengthen the bargaining power of the laborers, or as they can enforce a monopoly of labor in a particular trade and locality, they can secure the full compet.i.tive or even a monopoly price.

[Sidenote: Labor organizations a minor factor in lifting the ma.s.s of the workers]

[Sidenote: The chief factors determining wages]

3. _Wages viewed in general industry, and in the long run, are determined mainly by impersonal economic forces._ That implies the converse, that they are not determined mainly by the trade-unions. This statement, in fact, is admitted in calmer moments by the extreme partisans of the unions. Even the book before quoted says somewhat vaguely that "it is an error to think that the trade-union seeks to determine the rate of wages. It cannot do that. It can do no more than affect them." Again it says: "Capital is increasing faster than population.... It seems therefore merely in obedience to natural laws that wages should rise." Men can easily see personal and immediate results. They cannot follow out the impersonal and ultimate workings of economic forces. The leaders make exaggerated claims; laborers believe them and pay their dues more readily; the public believes them and is the more inclined to pardon the excesses of so important an inst.i.tution.

That wages in a number of special trades are raised in a considerable degree cannot be questioned. The open or secret use of violence and other antisocial forces make much of this boasted service to some of the workers, an injury to others, and an occasion of reproach from the citizen who condemns the spirit of lawlessness thus encouraged. The chief factors tending to raise the general standard of wages are the productiveness of industry, peace, order, and security to wealth, honesty in man and master, in lawmaker and in judge, the efficiency and intelligence of the workers, and an earnest effort on their part to get the share that compet.i.tion would accord them. Chiefly, though not exclusively, because of their bearing on this last factor, trade-unions have a useful, even though subordinate, part in the regulating of wages over the whole field of employment.

DIVISION B--ENTERPRISE AND PROFITS

CHAPTER 28

PRODUCTION AND THE COMBINATION OF THE FACTORS

-- I. THE NATURE OF PRODUCTION

[Sidenote: Man's active intervention in production here to be studied]

1. _The aim of industrial effort is the increase of the quant.i.ty and quality of scarce goods; this is economic production._ The thought has become familiar to the student that the supply of economic resources of whatever sort is limited, while the wants are practically unlimited. A supply of consumption goods meets a perennial stream of wants, the result being that value is attributed to things. The aim of production is to add to scarce things, to make the supply of goods as large as possible. There is occasion here to recall the thought of the two aspects of production noticed in Chapter 24. Man's part in production is pa.s.sive when goods come into existence without his effort. One can imagine the indolent savage of the tropics, lying under the banana-tree, letting the fruit drop into his mouth. One can conceive of a tribe living upon manna, where every day the people awoke to discover a certain amount of food provided to each person's hand. Though no effort could increase that amount, still, if the food differed in flavor and the better qualities were rare, value would come into existence and exchange would arise. Now there is something very a.n.a.logous to that in daily experience. There are some goods which effort can do little to, increase. Usually, however, there is a possibility of change and adaptation to make them better suited to needs, and there is required the use of intelligence to choose among the goods and to employ them in the best way. Further, man can intervene and direct the course of industry; he does not merely gather what is provided. It is this active intervention and effort that is here to be considered.

[Sidenote: The four essential characteristics of value]

2. _To have value, a thing must be of the right stuff, in the right form, at the right time, and at the right place to gratify wants._ A distinction is sometimes made between elemental, form, time, and place value. It is a mistake to say that the value of anything is due to any one of these features, for to have value all must be united in a single thing. But the distinction is useful in emphasizing the missing characteristics, which if supplied, cause value to emerge. Ice may be considered to have form value when produced artificially by a machine, time value when stored from winter to summer, and place value when brought from the north to the south. But not less essential is the psychological condition of a hungry and thirsty population ready to consume the ice. Any act or agent is said to be productive which works in any one of these respects: puts things in better form, or in a more fitting place, or provides them at a more fitting time to serve human wants.

[Sidenote: Economic vs. technical changes in goods]

3. _Economic production (in contrast with technical or merely formal production) is such a change in goods as is attended by an increase in value._ It is often well to contrast form, appearance, imitation, with the thing itself, the reality. Men sometimes go through the forms of study when their eyes and thoughts are wandering; through the form of getting a college education when they are simply having a good time.

Likewise in production there is the form and the reality. The young lady just out of boarding-school rarely produces a masterpiece with the tubes and brushes that Raphael might have used. The justification for amateur work is to be found in the doing and not in the market value of the result. Blue rosebuds, painted with loving if unskilled touch on red velvet slippers, may bloom into a romance and happiness; but to the economist this appears to be a consumption of good pigment for amus.e.m.e.nt, not a creation of value. The difference between the form and value of productive effort becomes, in the study of business organization, a most essential question. The significance of leadership and control of industry is found in this fact that economic goods may be united to produce results having either a less or a greater value than the materials that are used.

[Sidenote: Acquisition vs. social production]

4. _Individual acquisition may be contrasted with social production in cases where the individual increases his wealth at the expense of others, without adding to value._ Most economic efforts increase the income of the individual and the income of society at the same time. The fruits of the field and the uses of machines are net additions to current income; they are not merely subtracted from the income of one and added to that of another. The increase of products by labor may depress somewhat the exchange value of competing labor, but the general welfare is furthered by the greater abundance. With very slight qualification it is true that in these cases the good of each is the good of all. But in some forms of human effort, social and individual interests clash. When two men bet, one gains and the other loses. The gambler's gain is a loss not only directly to his beaten opponent but indirectly to society. Certain forms of speculation approach dangerously near to the appropriation of the goods of others, and others become outright stealing, or cheating so nearly like stealing that it would be treated as a crime if discovered. But many a man prowls along the border-line of crime all his life and succeeds in making large gains without falling into the clutches of the law. Cheating that can be detected, and outright stealing, are prohibited by the law not because the burglar is an idler; he loses sleep; he has his trials too. The pursuit of burglary requires courage, effort, and ingenuity, but society does not reward these as virtues nor recognize as production the transfer of wealth from the bank-vault to the pocket of the burglar. It is the aim of social inst.i.tutions to harmonize individual and social interests in the pursuit of wealth, to force men into lines of action where individual acquisition adds to the sum of social utilities. But there are many marginal cases where human justice discriminates only in a bungling way, and many controverted questions arise at the meeting-point of ethics, economics, and law.

[Sidenote: Industries are socially more or less productive]

5. _In this sense, productive industries may be distinguished from unproductive ones._ The old distinction between productive and unproductive labor rested on the idea that production must be embodied in material and lasting form. We have rejected this for the thought that the tests of production are to be found in feeling, not in outward things. The distinction, therefore, between productive and unproductive labor must now be of a very different kind. Viewed from the social standpoint, the efforts of men may be seen to be directed along more or less productive lines. Enterprise and effort shade off from the more to the less productive, from the extreme where the value is a net addition to wealth, through other cases where one's gain is partly at the cost of others, to fraud and crime where there is merely a transfer of ownership.

-- II. COMBINATION OF THE FACTORS

[Sidenote: The factors of production defined]

1. _The various parts, materials, and agents that unite to form products are called the factors of production._ In a general sense every separate thing that enters into industry is a factor; as, in agriculture, for example, the seed, plows, fields, fences, barns, cattle, labor. But usually in economic discussion, these numerous factors are grouped in large cla.s.ses. The main factors are two, variously named as man and nature, or labor and material agents, or humanity and wealth. Rejecting, as we have, the old view as to the nature of consumption goods and as to the nature and possibility of the distinction between "land" and artificial capital, we cla.s.s under wealth all material economic agents whatsoever. The discussion of labor and wages has broadly laid down the principles that apply to the value of human effort, but the factor of directing energy presents in modern society so many important features that it calls for special and fuller consideration.

[Sidenote: Progressive stages of control over natural conditions]

2. _The economic progress of society has been marked by decreasing dependence on the bounties and chances of nature and by increasing control of natural forces by man._ Various stages of progress in human history have been recognized. First is the stage of _appropriation_--the stage of hunting, or of fishing, or of gathering fruits. Man in this stage is still an animal in his economic methods, not guiding and controlling nature, but merely gathering what nature chances to bring forth. The limitations to man's powers in this stage are marked. There is excess of supply and waste at one season, scarcity and great suffering at another. With such crude utilization of the bounties of nature, a vast area will support but a small population. When sheep and cattle have been domesticated, and where there is a large area for grazing, industry rises to the _pastoral_ stage. While still dependent on nature's bounties for the feeding of his cattle, man is hourly intervening to increase, regulate, and improve the supply of food and materials. Famines are more rare, economic welfare is greater, a greater population is nourished on the same area. The _agricultural_ stage begins whenever man plants seeds, trims, tends, and increases by his care the supply of vegetable food. This is a still greater intervention in the course of nature. Man antic.i.p.ates the future, directs forces, and groups materials to his purpose of getting a regular food-supply. He is thus himself forced into settled life, begins hand-production, and makes the first steps in commerce. Then gradually comes the _industrial_ stage, in which control over nature grows, supplies increase, machinery and motive forces are utilized, and humanity is in the full tide of industrial development. These are not sharply marked changes, but throughout all there is a growth of security, of certainty, and of productivity. With man's increasing power and foresight, chance is lessened, for directing energy takes its place.