Historical Catechism

of

American Unionism

PRICE 25 CENTS

PUBLISHED BY THE

EDUCATIONAL BUREAU OF THE
INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD

1001 WEST MADISON ST., CHICAGO, ILL.

Preface

In publishing this Catechism, the object sought has been to stimulate a desire for knowledge of American labor history. Labor progress we believe to be predicated upon a wider and deeper knowledge than is prevalent among the workers at the present time.

This pamphlet is only an outline which it requires a study of American unionism to fill in. It is our hope that those who read this book will carry their investigations further afield. But, even as it is, this catechism fills a long felt want. It will help acquaint those who read it with some things they should know. The works from which this condensation is made are beyond the means of the average worker. They are available at the public libraries, but so few of the working class have either the time or the inclination to visit these institutions that it was deemed advisable to publish the Catechism as an experimental step in working class education. The price puts it within reach of even the poorest worker.

Whatever shortcomings the pamphlet may have, it is at least an effort to communicate knowledge to the workers of America, of which they stand in great need.

It is intended to follow the Catechism with other works dealing with American unionism, at a later date. Some of these are even now being prepared.

We submit the Historical Catechism of American Unionism to our fellow workers with confidence that it will be received as a worthy contribution to American labor literature.

Educational Bureau of the I. W. W.

To secure an adequate wage, reasonable hours, and good working conditions under capitalism. To overthrow capitalism is the objective of the labor movement.

4. Then the labor union has no other function than to enable the workers to regulate their jobs?

None whatever. When a labor union attempts to function in any other capacity it is undertaking something foreign to its purpose, and which detracts from its usefulness as an instrument of labor.

A wage which will enable the worker to live according to a decent standard and to make provision for periods of sickness and old age.

6. Should it be the purpose of the union to bring about the establishment of such a wage?

That is the purpose of a union. Together with the regulation of hours and conditions, this is the sole mission of a union in the every-day struggle on the job.

7. Is it not functioning within its proper sphere when it provides for sick and death benefits?

It is not. If the union functions successfully in its proper sphere—the job—the workers will be able to attend to their own sick wants. As to death benefits, the union is intended to serve the living laborers; and, as a union—a body with an economic function—is not, at least should not, be concerned about the dead.

Industry is not sentimental, and we are trying to study the labor union, as an instrument of labor. If we would learn the truth about it, we must be prepared to cast aside sentiment and prejudice and get down to bedrock.

No. We must consider, in dealing with unionism, that we are dealing with an instrument designed to serve definite purposes in industry, and nowhere else. If unions provide for their sick and injured, to the extent that they do so, they defeat their own purpose, which is to force from the capitalists a return which would make such relief by unions unnecessary. This discourages the spirit that would force the recognition that proper provision for the workers should be the first charge against industry.

10. Then you are opposed to the workers rendering one another mutual assistance?

No. It is folly for labor to foster the belief that the union can function successfully in two opposite directions; that it can secure an adequate return from the employers by lessening the need for it. If the workers are provided for, even insufficiently, during their periods of sickness or unemployment they are so protected, however, that the rigors of capitalism do not effect them, as they would if they were not so protected; and consequently, the workers are not inspired to fight for increased wages, or to find a solution for unemployment. If these features, which have been added to unionism, were removed it is probable that even the conservative unions would be inclined to address themselves to the problem of unemployment; they would devote themselves to essential job problems.

Decidedly. If the unions did not have such features they would have to function more aggressively for the workers in industry. They would necessarily strive for higher wages, shorter hours and better conditions.

Well, with better wages, the workers could make better provision for themselves; with shorter hours more of them would be employed, and more leisure for self-culture would be available; with better conditions less accidents would occur; the percentage of sick would be enormously reduced; there would be fewer victims of industrial diseases, etc.

13. Then the unions only defeat their own purposes by adopting these policies?

Exactly. Whenever a union tries to function anywhere else than on the job, it is neither successful as a union nor in any other capacity. The union is designed for one purpose—the regulation of the job in the interest of the workers. It cannot function in any other manner. It can no more be a union and an insurance society at the same time, than a saw can be a soldering iron, or a plumber can wipe a lead join with a shovel.

Absolutely. When a union confines itself to dealing directly with industrial problems, other things will be added to its achievements. The union is the key with which the workers can unlock the treasure house of industry and solve all their problems.

Because the interest of the boss is to that of the worker as the interest of the coyote is to that of the sheep. The union cannot serve the worker and the boss at the same time, though many of the workers believe it can be done.

Because their interests are opposed. The boss wants low wages, while the workers want high wages; the employer wants the workers to speed up, while the worker does not wish to. So that it would be impossible for the union to serve these opposing interests.

These are not labor unions. They are employers’ unions, no matter what they call themselves, or are alleged to be.

Not yet. By the bosses, of course, you mean superintendents, foremen, etc. Their viewpoint is the same as the employers’, or they would not be holding their present jobs. In the discussion of questions relating to the job they would be putting up and contending for the employers’ side, thus preventing the advancement of the workers’ interest. They would, therefore, prove a hindrance to the union.

Well, if there is, let them look out for their side. We have all we can do to attend to ours.

The only regard to be felt for them is to regard them as our enemies, economically.

That is what a union is, if it is anything at all—a fighting weapon of the workers. People do not take fighting weapons to a picnic; they do take them to a battlefield—and that is just what modern industry is. There is an unceasing battle between the working class and the employing class. The union is the weapon with which the workers wage battle in behalf of their interests.

Very little is known of the earliest unions in the United States. The printers are. known to have organized for and won strikes in New York (1776) and Philadelphia (1786). The carpenters of Philadelphia struck for a 10-hour day in 1791. Shoemakers in Philadelphia organized in 1792, but no records of that union have been preserved. They organized again in 1793. This union was known as the Federal Society of Cordwainers. It lasted until 1806, when there was a conviction for conspiracy. This union conducted the first organized strike in America of which there is record. The printers of New York organized the Typographical Society in 1794. This union lasted two and one-half years. Later there were organized the Franklin Typographical Society (1799-1804) and the New York Typographical Society (1809-1818). The shoemakers and printers were unquestionably the pioneers in developing unionism among the wage workers in the United States.

The Baltimore tailors struck successfully in 1795, 1805 and 1807. There were sailors’ strikes and ship-builders’ strikes in Massachusetts in 1817, and a sailors’ strike in New York in March 1800.

The first twenty-five years of the 19th century mark a period during which the wage working elements in the U. S. were striving to develop some means for protecting themselves as workers. This may be regarded as the dawn of American unionism.

24. Upon what were the conspiracy charges, referred to in the preceding question, based?

Upon the grounds that the Federal Society of Cordwainers was an illegal and criminal combination for the purpose of raising wages.

In the Philadelphia case (1806) the jury returned a verdict of "guilty of a combination to raise wages." The New York case went against the shoemakers. In one of the Baltimore cases the jury found for the journeymen. The Pittsburgh case (1814) was compromised, the shoemakers paying the costs of the case and going back to work at the old rate of wages, practically, if not legally, a defeat. In the Pittsburgh case (1815) fines were imposed without imprisonment.

Professor Commons’ History of Labor in the United States says: "On the whole, the judges, especially in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh cases, sided against the journeymen."

Commons’ history is here quoted: "That other employers of labor were much interested is evident from the dedication of the Pittsburgh case of 1815, penned by the reporter, ‘To the Manufacturers and Mechanics . . . . This Trial Involving Principles essential to their interest, is humbly dedicated by their Obedient Servant . . . .’

’Perhaps he would not . . . have undertaken to report it, but for the pressing solicitations of many respectable Mechanics and Manufacturers ...The verdict of that jury is most important to the manufacturing interests of the community; it puts an end to those associations which have been so prejudicial to the successful enterprize of the capitalists of the western country. But this case is not important to this country alone; it proves beyond possibility of doubt that, notwithstanding the adjudications in New York and Philadelphia, there still exists in those cities combinations which extend their deleterious influence to every part of the union. The inhabitants of those cities, the manufacturers particularly, are bound by their interests, as well as the duties they owe (the) community, to watch those combinations with a jealous eye, and to prosecute to conviction, and subject to the penalties of the law conspiracies so subversive to the best interests of the country.’"

28. Were these the first cases where aid of the courts was invoked by the employers?

The Commons’ history states that "These prosecutions were the first in this country in which the employers invoked the aid of the courts in their struggle with labor"; and it adds: "It was brought out in the testimony that the masters financed, in part at least, the New York and Pittsburgh prosecutions."

29. Does not this look as though the bosses were early alive to their class interests?

Indeed, it does. It shows, moreover, that the courts showed their class character at an early date.

That we have organizations today proves that they regarded them as unjust. In the later cases the right to organize was conceded, but the means by which organizations sought to achieve their aims were declared illegal because they injured the employers, and interfered with the rights of others who would take jobs against the rules laid down by the unions. Pretty much the same arguments as are used by the open-shoppers today.

As the unions were local in scope and composed of skilled mechanics, the very earliest attempts to win concessions from the employing tradesmen were to resolve the union into a co-operative concern competing for business with their former employers. Where this policy was not adopted, it was customary for those who remained in employment to support those who were battling for the points at issue, which were wages and hours. The shoe-makers, printers and carpenters very early adopted a system of providing funds from which striking members were supported. The policy of "non-intercourse" (boycott) was a very effective weapon with the early unionists, who employed it seriously and applied it vigorously. They would not patronize a boarding house where scabs were admitted; buy from a store that supplied them with goods; nor have anything to do with anyone who had dealings, social or otherwise, with a scab.

Wages and hours. As the apprentice system had a bearing upon wages, it received much attention. Part-time workers, in the sense that only part of the time required for apprenticeship has been served, worked for lower rates than certified journeymen. This resulted in lowering the wages and throwing sufficient of the journeymen out of employment to make it a burning question.

They sought to establish the "closed shop", wherein they believed these questions might be more easily dealt with.

The shoemakers union would not permit its members to work in any shop where non-union men were employed, nor for any employer who hired non-union help. The printers were opposed to scabs also.

35. Are there any instances where scabs were successfully barred from shops?

In Philadelphia, New York and Pittsburg the shoe-makers compelled the outsiders to join them as soon as they came to town. New York shoemakers imposed a heavy fine for failure to do so. Pittsburg shoe-makers exercised jurisdiction over men not members of the union, who they demanded should attend the meeting at which charges were preferred against them and defend themselves. Employers had to pay fines imposed against scabs.

Yes. Almost from their first appearance they had sick and death benefit features. The printers allowed benefits "to sickly and distressed members, their widows and children . . . provided, that such sum shall not exceed $3.00 per week." The shoemakers allowed "$3.00 per week", although it was "not an article of the constitution."

Commons’ history says of the Philadelphia Typographical Society that "it willingly risked its status as a trade-regulating body in order to secure its benefit funds. Likewise, the New York printers, in their eagerness to make their benefit funds secure, in 1818, agreed to surrender their trade union functions completely, when the legislature declined to grant an act of incorporation on any other terms".

Yes. The Philadelphia Society of Master Cordwainers was organized in 1789. The master shoe-makers of Pittsburg were organized in 1814. The master printers were organized in New York, Philadelphia and other towns. The bosses are never behind-hand with organization.

The working time extended from sunrise to sunset for all workers, with stoppage of work for the morning and mid-day meals. This applied during the entire year, so that the length of the workday varied with the season. The workday was longer in the summer time than in the winter.

30. Did not this method give the employers a great advantage in the summer as compared with the winter?

Farming, which was then the prevailing industry, was carried on with sun to sun as the measure of the day. The idea prevailed that this practice was necessary in manufacturing as well. Besides, it was believed that shortening the workday would have "an injurious effect" in all modes of business, agriculture and commerce. Moreover, lowering the working time would be "opening a wide door for idleness and vice," and would destroy the condition of the workers, "made happy and prosperous by frugal, orderly, temperate and ancient habits". As usual, even in our day, the demand for a shorter workday was attributed to foreigners, "bringing with them their feelings and habits, and a spirit of discontent and insubordination to which our Native Mechanics have hitherto been strangers". (1821)

That of the Union Society of Carpenters in Philadelphia, in May 1791. The men demanded a working day "from 6 o’clock in the morning to six in the evening."

43. What, besides the long workday, brought on the 1791 carpenters’ strike?

The master carpenters paid by the day in summer, and work was done at piece rates in the winter.

Journeymen, Millwrights and Machine Workers of Philadelphia (1822) ; Boston House Carpenters (1825), who struck in the busy season as there was a great demand for carpenters owing to "the recent calamitous fire" and "great public improvements". They "believed the existing wages derogatory to the principles not only of justice, but of humanity", and "that ten hours faithful labor shall hereafter constitute a day’s work." They also contended that "on the present system, it is impossible for a Journeyman, Housewright and House Carpenter to maintain a family . . . with the wages now given".

They replied to the effect that this "combination for the purposes of altering the time of commencing and terminating their daily labour, from that which has been customary from time immemorial (is) fraught with numerous and pernicious evils . . ." would have an "unhappy influence . . . by seducing them from that course of industry and economy of time" to which it was desirable to "enure" apprentices. Moreover, it would expose the workmen "to many temptations and improvident practices" from which they would be delivered by "working from sun to sun". These early bosses were pious old ducks, for one reason why they opposed the shorter workday was because "we fear and dread the consequences of such a measure upon the morals and well-being of society". They were patriotic, too, regular 100 per centers. They did not believe "this project to have originated with any of the faithful and industrious Sons of New England, but are compelled to consider it an evil of foreign growth, and one which we hope will not take root in the favored soil of Massachusetts". "And especially", they added, "that our city the early rising and industry of whose inhabitants are universally proverbial, may not be infected with the unnatural production." That is how the bosses regarded unions, and the demands of workers, one hundred years ago.

46. Were the bosses not concerned about the effect of the shorter workday upon themselves?

It is the employers’ manner, and very effective strategy as well, to disguise their material interests with morality and patriotism, such as you read in the answer to the preceding question; but at bottom their real concern is always for their material interests. So we find the real (economic) reason buried beneath their moral and patriotic mouthings "if such a measure (10-hour day) would ever be just, it cannot be at a time like the present, when builders have generally made their engagements and contracts for the season." Then to show their disinterestedness (?) and broad Christian spirit (?) they announce that they will not only not grant the 10 hour day, but "that we will employ no man who persists in adhering to the project of which we complain." Here is the blacklist as early as 1825.

Because the business elements combined against them. A meeting of the business interests was convened which declared that the proceedings of the journeymen were "a departure from the salutary and steady usages which have prevailed in this city, and all New England, from time immemorial." "If this confederacy," they added, in appealing to fellow employers, "should be countenanced by the community, it must, of consequence, extend to and embrace all the Working Classes in every department in Town and Country . . . ." This meeting also decided to support the Master Carpenters "at whatever sacrifice, or inconvenience, and to this end extend the time for the fulfillment of their contracts, and even to suspend, if necessary, building altogether." They could foresee, they said, "No loss or inconvenience arising from such suspensions, equal to what must result from permitting such combinations to become effectual".

Apparently. From the standpoint of their relationship they could see what the workers should do, and they feared that organization "would extend to and embrace all the Working Classes in every department in Town and Country". They saw also that "no loss or inconvenience—was equal to what must result from permitting such organizations to be(come) effectual." Note: It is well for the student to bear this in mind when considering the later unions in their structure, policies, and the aims which they sought to achieve. Remember that the early capitalist class saw clearly the necessity of working class organization, and feared it. The capitalists have lost none of their cunning, and have never had scruples or a conscience to lose. They wanted the workers divided, and they are divided. Division is organized in the ranks of the workers.

They organized a co-operative and advertised to do work at 25 per cent less than the prices charged by the masters.

Evidently not, as they lost the strike. We agree with Commons’ history that "co-operation is an indication, not of trade unionism, but of the failure of trade union policies." We shall find much evidence in this respect at a later period. Co-operation has been used (1) for the purpose of retaliation on the employers, and (2) to attain a position where permanency of employment might be achieved. Up to now it has not proved successful.

As the tools of the period were comparatively simple, every journeyman expected at some time to become a master. This feeling tended to cloud their perceptions as to the necessity of keeping their unions clear of any influence which might tend to mislead them in the enunciation of principles and the formation of policies. It had the tendency to temper the demands of the day with the idea of its effect upon their own possible changed relation upon the morrow. This was, and still remains, a dangerous influence in organizations of wage-earners. Even though the employer might be barred from membership, which was not the case, the influence of his viewpoint still commanded an important place in the deliberations of these early unions.

With a few modifications it has remained up to quite recent times. The physical absence of the employer is not important as long as his mentality governs in union affairs. This is the case in the A. F. of L. and "independent" unions today.

There was one exception, an employing printer was expelled by the New York Typographical Society in 1817. According to Commons’ history, which quotes from the No. 6 Official Annual of the Typographical Union, March 1892: "’Experience teaches us that the actions of men are influenced almost wholly by their interests, and that it is impossible that a Society (union) can be well regulated and useful when its members are actuated by opposite motives, and separate interests. This society is a society of journeymen printers; and as the interests of the journeymen are separate and in some respects opposite to those of the employers, we deem it improper that they should have any voice or influence in our deliberations.’"

It is a clear statement, in all probability due to the influence of some member or small group. But all the organizations accepted the doctrine that "the interests of the capitalists and wage earners are mutual and harmonious".

Here are some expressions that go far to prove it: Typographical Society (1802), "We cherish the hope, that the time is not far distant, when the employer and employed will vie with each other, the one, in allowing a competent salary, the other, in deserving it."

Philadelphia Journeymen, pressmen (1816) in presenting a scale of prices to the employing printers: "The pressmen are induced, from a duty which they owe themselves to call your serious attentions to what they here represent. They therefore anticipate that you will, with the liberality becoming your profession, give your decided approbation to the annexed scale of prices. Your opposition we ought not to expect."

It was generally held by the early unionists that employers and employed held interests in common. Says the Commons’ history, "There was, indeed, as yet no ‘labor philosophy’. The skilled mechanic might expect to become a master, and it did not occur to him to use his organization to abolish the wage system."

Sometimes the unions corresponded with one another upon their purposes, informing each other about their demands and exchanging fraternal greetings. Sometimes, they rendered financial assistance to one another, as in the case of the Philadelphia printers who sent $83.50 to New York to aid in relieving "distressed" members. They also used to send out lists of scabs to their organized fellow craftsmen in other cities. At times they notified other unions of their wage demands.

In particular trades there may have been. In 1809 the shoemakers struck against one firm. This firm farmed out its work to other manufacturers. To meet this situation, the shoemakers called out every man in the trade. It was a general strike against the master shoemakers.

Following the Napoleonic wars an industrial depression swept through the United States. Goods manufactured in Europe were dumped into this country. Unemployment made ravages among the working class, and in the resulting competition the unions were destroyed. It is stated that in Philadelphia alone out of 9,762 workmen employed in 1816, about 7,500 were discharged in 1819. It is authentically reported that in 1819 approximately 20,000 workers were seeking work in Philadelphia, a like number in New York, and 10,000 in Baltimore.

Steam power had been successfully applied to water transportation. This made the navigation of western waters commercially more advantageous. There is said to have been 108 steam-propelled vessels on western waters in 1822. The new power made possible readier and more rapid use of the Mississippi, and other navigable waters. This development of production machinery made possible the addition of vast territories, and rendered the rest of the world more accessible to our production, and our markets to their manufactures. Steam as a motive power in industry and transportation was the means upon which capitalist domination depended.

We find many unions springing up in trades where previously there had been no organization. In New York (1825) "The Nailers Union (and) the Weavers Union joined with a number of journeymen societies in celebration of the opening of the Erie Canal". The "female weavers" struck with the men in Pawtucket, R. I. in 1823. In 1823 the New York City stone-cutters struck for $1.62½ a day. This union also struck for higher wages in 1825. Journeymen Hatters in Philadelphia struck in 1825, "to establish a regular system of wages, to prevent one employer from underselling another." New York hatters organized in 1823.

Other strikes were called to resist wage cuts. In 1823, Buffalo Tailors, Philadelphia Ship Carpenters, the New York Journeymen House Painters struck for increased wages. In 1825 there were strikes of tailors, stone-cutters, stevedores and common laborers in New York; hand-loom weavers in Philadelphia, and cabinet makers in Baltimore and Philadelphia. In 1825 the bakers sought the abolition of Sunday work—a shortening of the weekly working time. New York City bakers led this fight.

Yes. Prison labor for the first time came into conflict with "free labor". In their effort to minimize the labor cost of production, the rising capitalist class sought to employ convict labor. This had an injurious effect upon a labor market which was just recovering from the effects of the panic. In 1823, the journeymen cabinet makers of New York held a mass meeting and petitioned the state legislature for redress from a practice which threatened "the ruin of . . . free mechanics." Adding, as a recommendation, that "convicts be employed in a state marble quarry."

64. Then it was not the principle of the employment of convict labor they objected to, but its effect upon their own trade?

Evidently. That employment in a marble quarry might have a bad effect upon the quarrymen did not concern them, as long as the cabinet making trade was given relief. The unskilled working strata have always furnished the dumping ground for all the grievances of the skilled workers. That is true even today.

They became alarmed, and several prosecutions upon charges of conspiracy resulted. While the right to organize was no longer denied, the means adopted to build up, and the methods employed by the organizations were questioned. Tactics, like picketing, supported strikes, closed shops, distribution of scab lists were declared illegal by the courts. These were regarded as being coercive, and forms of intimidation. The unionists were found guilty. The position of the courts in these cases is almost identical with the position of the courts in labor cases today.

66. When do we first find anything like a co-ordinated movement of wage workers?

Following a strike of building trades workmen in Philadelphia in 1827 there was organized in that city the first central labor union of which there is record—The Mechanics’ Union of Trade Associations.

It was a body consisting of delegates from existing trade associations affiliated with it. The carpenters, painters, and bricklayers were affiliated. Many other trades were also connected with this movement; for at one time it embraced fifteen associations. It undertook the work of organizing unorganized trades "who are yet destitute of trade societies."

It adopted a constitution and by-laws. It is alleged that this contained a clause prohibiting political action by the organization. Notwithstanding this provision, after a year of existence, in May, 1828, it resolved itself into the first labor political party in this country. The decision to function as a political organization was approved by vote of the constituent unions and other trade societies.

Thus, the very first promising effort of American work-men was diverted from its proper economic sphere into the by-path of politics. As the political movement made headway, the Mechanics’ Union lost ground as an economic factor, and at its last meeting in November, 1829, only four unions were represented. It was killed by politics. Two years later, in May 1831 a mass meeting was called "to consider the establishment of a ten-hour day"; so that it would appear that there existed two schools even in that day—the labor politician and those who believed in direct economic action.

A labor press was one result of this movement. A recognition of class divisions in society, though not at all clear, is noticeable. It implied the division of the population into "the rich" and "the poor" rather than into the employing and the employed classes. There was a widespread belief that the control of the state by "the rich" was responsible for the evils under which the wage working population suffered. From this there followed a conviction that the wage earners and "common people", who were numerically in the great majority, could remedy their grievances through political action. There was complete failure to recognize the true character of the state—a failure that persists up to this date—and, with the mistaken idea that their ballots would effect their deliverance, the workers were inveigled by their leaders to essay the political role which seemed to have the virtues of being easy and sure.

69. Could not the workers see that their greatest reliance was in their economic organizations?

Why, they do not see that yet. The arguments that won the workers of 1828, and the following years, are as potent to win them today as they were then.

There were many things in the infancy of the labor movement that appeared to be essentially political in their origin, and it was deemed that these would respond to political treatment. That these were basically economic did not occur to the early unionist. Such were (1) the obligatory militia service, (2) imprisonment for debt, (3) denial of educational facilities. The workers of those days sought relief from these very grave matters in the way that appeared easiest and best to them—politically.

The instinctive promptings that their power lay in the control over their labor power, urged the economic organization. We must remember that the bulk of these workers did not understand the social relationship which victimized them, and were easily persuaded that "injudicious and partial legislation, and the indifference of our rulers to the general welfare"; that "laws were made for the benefit of the rich and the oppression of the poor" was the cause of their disadvantage. They were thus induced to seek redress in politics. So far was this carried that even the ten-hour day took the form of a political demand.

No. In New York, as in Philadelphia, it was originally a ten-hour day movement. With the nucleus of these two organizations, the movement spread out over the New England states and through the southern seaboard states, until it is said to have been active from Maine to Georgia.

It disintegrated about 1831-1832, because of "the workers inability to play the game of politics", and the all-too excellent acquaintance of the old party politicians with the "tricks of the game."

It served the purpose of directing the attention and energies of the workers from the industrial field, where they might have made themselves formidable, to the political arena, where they became the playthings of capitalist intrigue—a decidedly capitalist purpose, which politics served well.

It aimed to be a union of all producers. Its program was both economic and political.

It grew out of a ten-hour movement. The ten-hour day had been established in New York City, and partially established in Philadelphia. But the building trades in Boston had been defeated in an attempt to establish it, by a strike in 1830. A movement to force a ten-hour working day grew in volume in New England. The mechanics and machinists of Providence, R. I. met in November 1831 and declared that "after March 20, 1832 they would only work ten hours." In December of that year (1831) delegates from several parts of New England held a meeting in Providence and issued a call for a convention to be held in Boston in February 1832. This convention gave birth to the New England Association, and voted to establish the ten-hour day.

Yes, and this was a fundamental weakness. It showed its concern and solicitude for the small employer "who is exposed to a competition that is frequently ruinous from the disproportionate means of those who contend."

It is recorded that the factory operatives proved a disappointment. The New Haven delegates to the convention of 1833 complained that "the absence of delegates from the factory villages gives reason to fear that the operatives in the factories are already subdued to the bidding of the employers—that they are already sold to the oppressor, that they have felt the chains riveted upon themselves and their children, and despair of redemption. The Farmers and Mechanics, then, are the last hope of the American people. If they falter, from ignorance or from fear, if they are diverted from their object by deception or by reproaches, the next generation will find its workingmen pusillanimous subjects of an aristocratic government, naked, famished and in hovels, sowing that others may reap, and building palaces for others to inhabit."

"To mature measures to concentrate the efforts of the labouring classes, to regulate the hours of labor, by one uniform standard, to promote the cause of education and general information, to reform abuses practiced upon them, and to maintain their rights as American Freemen." It proposed to establish "committees in each state, to collect and publish facts respecting the condition of labouring men, women, and children, and abuses practiced upon them by their employers." They also proposed to petition legislatures on the subjects of hours of labor and the education of child operatives in the factories.

It was not intended to be. In its structure and proposals, it was a mass organization of producers corresponding to the Knights of Labor of later years. At its second convention, held in the State House in Boston (September 1832), delegates were present from Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. The third convention had a representative from Pennsylvania in addition to the states represented in the second convention. At this (3rd) convention the case of the imprisonment of operatives of the Thompsonville Carpet Manufacturing Company of Thompsonville, Conn. was taken up. A strike had occurred in the plant of this company. Suit for damages was brought against the strike leaders. They were imprisoned upon a charge of conspiracy to ruin the business of the company because the demand for an increase of wages was refused. A committee was appointed to propose a statement of facts for publication in "The New England Artisan". The convention denounced the conduct in connection with the strikers in this case as "an alarming abuse of power which ought to be resisted." Arrangements were made by this convention "to call a national convention at some central point."

The next and last convention of the New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Working Men met at Northampton, Mass., in Sept., 1834. It was only a prelude to the state political convention, which met in the same place immediately afterwards. Politicals had slain another economic movement of the workers.

81. Was the New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Working Men responsible for any economic attempt by workers?

Yes. Ship carpenters and caulkers of Boston, and house carpenters, masons, painters, slaters, and sail-makers, jointly strove for a ten-hour day though, apparently, without success. There was later a lockout of the ship carpenters and caulkers belonging to the Association, and a boycott of those master mechanics who were suspected of being friendly to the union men.

It accomplished none of the things to which it applied itself. The reforms it sought were later taken up as vote-getting expedients by the dominant political parties, and were thus legally established. As a preventative of industrial unity, from the capitalist point of view, these political parties were very successful; from the working class point of view, they were disastrous.

The typographical societies of New York and Philadelphia, which, however, were of a purely benevolent character since their incorporation, maintained a continuous existence. In 1833 the Philadelphia Typographical Association was formed whose "primary intention" was "the determination and support of adequate wages for journeymen printers".

In 1833 also, the Benevolent Society of Journeymen Tailors of New York divided. The militant members formed the United Society of Journeymen Tailors directed to industrial purposes whereupon the old society devoted itself, in part, to trade affairs and affiliated with the city central union.

The Pennsylvania Society of Journeymen Cabinet Makers, organized in 1806 and incorporated in 1825, revised its constitution in 1829 in order to apply itself industrially, by making it an objective "to establish a stated price, as a criterion for workmen to settle all disputes which may arise between them and their employers, in an amicable and satisfactory manner."

The United Beneficial Society of Cordwainers of Philadelphia during March 1835, held a meeting to organize all non-union shoemakers, and two months later voted to strike for higher wages.

That division of labor was threatening the hand-craftsmen. The period of apprenticeship covered from 5 to 7 years, when the full trade was learned. But now, only certain processes were necessary, and when an apprentice became an adept in one or more of these, the employer had every interest in refraining from completing his knowledge of the trade. The employer thus got an expert’s work in a process for an apprentice’s allowance. As a consequence, the apprentice system was a live question with the journeymen, and every effort was made to regulate it. It threw many journeymen out of work as boys were substituted, because their wages were lower. The printers, tailors, ropemakers, bakers, and many trades in other branches of manufacturing were affected. There was great complaint that there was much hardship endured by workers in the various trades because "labor is so divided that what made one trade formerly, now makes half a dozen, and every working tool is simplified or improved—to say nothing of machinery."

Besides the cheap labor of the apprentices, women provided another source of cheap labor. In 1837 women were employed in more than one hundred different trades. Women were used as compositors to break a printers’ strike in the Philadelphia newspaper offices in the early 30’s, and women seamstresses to break a strike of tailors in 1833 in New York. Cheap convict labor was employed in competition with free labor earlier in New York and Pennsylvania than in other states.—It was systematically used in Massachusetts in 1805, Vermont, in 1808, Maryland in 1811, and New Hampshire in 1812. As early as 1828 the New York and Auburn prisons became profitable undertakings to the state. In Connecticut (1828) the prisons also became profitable, as did those of Massachusetts (1832). The Sing Sing prison in 1835 made a profit of nearly $29,000. What, do you think, did the manufacturers who contracted for this prison labor make!

85. What organization form succeeded the New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Working-men?

Organizations of central labor unions of the type of the Mechanic’s Union of Trade Associations, which originated in Philadelphia in 1827.

These unions cannot strictly be said to have followed the N. E. A. of F. M. and O. W., as the first one was established in New York City in 1833, while the New England Association was still in existence.

This form of unionism gave impetus to organization work among the several trades, for we find unions of Hand Loom weavers, plasterers, bricklayers, smiths, cigar makers, plumbers as well as the pioneer trades which were foremost in advancing the cause of unionism, like the printers, carpenters, shoemakers, tailors, etc.

The women workers, also, show signs of awakening, and they formed a mass organization, covering Philadelphia and vicinity, which was known as the Female Improvement Society. This organization included in its membership tailoresses, seamstresses, binders, folders, milliners, stock-makers, corset makers, and mantua-makers.

In Philadelphia trade societies increased from 21 in 1833 to 53 in 1836. During the same period in New York, such societies increased from 29 to 52.

Baltimore had 23 trade societies in 1836. Newark (N. J.) 16, Boston, 16. Local unions were established as far west as Louisville, Ky., and St. Louis, Mo., and included Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati.

It is very significant that all the building trades of Buffalo, N. Y. were included in an association of Journeymen builders. This would appear to be the starting point of the modern Building Trades Council.

The Female Improvement Society of Philadelphia was an inclusive union which did not apply itself to remedying ills in one calling but in all callings where women were employed. It won an important demand in Philadelphia by which an increase of wages for all women was secured. We are informed that "the employers appear to have granted the increase without a strike, and the association soon after went to pieces."

Women in many trades had recourse to organization as a means of improving their conditions. We find women’s unions in New York, Baltimore, Lynn (Mass.)

It was argued that the trade societies (craft unions) "having discovered that they were unable singly to combat the numerous powers arrayed against them, united together for mutual protection". It was believed that "trade societies are the best means" for workers in the individual trades, and Trades Unions (central labor bodies) the best means for all the trades.

This idea gained such headway that the cotton operatives in several Pennsylvania towns formed the Trades Union of Pennsylvania. The tailors of Louisville, Cincinnati and St. Louis acted concertedly against the master tailors of those three towns in December, 1835.

Carpenters won the 10-hour day in Philadelphia and an increase in wages in 1833. Several attempts to cut wages were successfully resisted. Many strikes for benefits were successful. A labor press was one important outcome of these bodies, and a more general knowledge of labor problems was diffused.

Unions with grievances would strike in the absence of remedial treatment. The affiliated unions would lend financial assistance and such industrial support as refusing to supply raw material, or to handle the products of scab workmen. At that stage of industrial development this meant the exercise of great power, and with the conscientiously strenuous use of the boycott was designed to win a greater measure of success than was possible to a single trade society.

Apparently the unions had learned the lesson of politics, and their experiences were recent enough to suggest to them the taking of a definite stand. So, we find the unionists dead set against participation in politics by the organizations. In New York they counselled the unionized workers "not to lend their standard to decorate the pageant of any political procession". In Baltimore politics were disavowed. In Philadelphia, the home of labor politics, it was decided that "no Party, political or religious questions shall at any time be agitated in, or acted upon by this Union."

In 1836 the Philadelphia union gave three reasons for their position in regard to politics: The third one, after referring to the experience of the Mechanic’s Union, declared that "the Trades’ Union never will be political, because its members have learned from experience that the introduction of politics into their societies has thwarted every effort to ameliorate their conditions". This says, in effect, that they believed politics to be an instrument of the employers.

They did not welcome it. That this policy on the part of the union militants was not a mere gesture is shown by the demand for the resignation of the first president of the New York General Trades’ Union. This individual accepted an appointment by the Governor of New York to serve on a commission to investigate prison labor in the state. The report of this commission was a great disappointment to the organized workmen. The labor president subscribed to it. He was accused of having "deserted the cause of the Mechanics and Workingmen". However, there was enough politics in the union to prevent any investigation of his conduct. The politicians were inside, and laying low while awaiting their opportunity.

Indeed it was. In 1835 the Supreme Court of the State of New York handed down a decision in which a shoemaker’s society was held to be "a combination to injure trade and commerce". The employers took this decision as a basis upon which to institute an action against the journeymen tailors who were then on strike. Twenty tailors were arrested and charged with "conspiracy to injure trade and commerce, and for riot and assault and battery". The tailors were found guilty.

The decision of the court aroused intense indignation. A mass meeting was held at which the judge and courts in general were denounced. This meeting, influenced by the outrageous finding of the court in this, and other cases, upon the spur of the moment decided upon political action instead of economic action, and resolved "to take into consideration the propriety of forming a separate and distinct party, around which the laboring classes and their friends, can rally with confidence." The opportunity was provided, and the politicians were ready.

Similarly in Philadelphia in 1836, when some three hundred coal heavers were on strike for a 25 cent per day increase. Several of them were arrested. The bail was fixed by the mayor at $2,500. He is alleged to have declared when setting the bail that he was determined "to lay the axe at the root of the Trades’ Union". The threat, and the excessive bail aroused the central labor union, which took up the fight on behalf of the coal heavers. The court dismissed both charges of conspiracy and riot. The union determined to strike at the mayor politically; the politicians were on hand, but the mayor was re-elected.

93. When was a general ten-hour day established in any section of the United States?

In Philadelphia, in June, 1835. It was obtained as the result of a general strike of all workers, which, curiously enough, was inaugurated by the common laborers and coal heavers of the city. The workers in every calling struck, and the employers conceded the ten-hour day. Three or four days of direct action accomplished what years of politics could not make a start on. The New York Journal of Commerce, which was very hostile to the workers, conceded that ten hours was a long enough day, when the workers already had it. Previously, that employers’ sheet could not reconcile itself to the demand. But it stated that "What we object to is not the thing sought—but the means of attaining it. For the precedent is full of mischief ; if such is to be the rewards of turn-outs (strikes), there will be no end to them."

That these strikers were predicated upon organization, and that organization was made necessary by the refusal of the interests for which this paper spoke is conveniently overlooked.

The strike brought the ten-hour day, and the lead was taken by the unskilled workers. This is worth remembering.

No. They immediately set out to obtain increased wages, and met with encouraging success.

It brought about the organization of the employers. Employers’ associations are found in all the industrial towns from 1836 on. The blacklist was used as a weapon against union workers. The blacklist was not equal to the union and the boycott, so the employers again turned to the courts for aid in overcoming the advantages that lay with organized workers. The courts did not disappoint them.

There was much activity in organizing work. There were many demands for betterments, and, on the whole, there was a wholesome development in the working class.

97. Was no attempt made for more extensive organization than Central Labor Unions?

Yes. The first attempt at national organization was made when the New York General Trades’ Union issued a call for a national convention in March, 1834.

A convention was held in New York City in August, 1834, which was attended by delegates from Boston, New York, Brooklyn, Poughkeepsie, Newark, and Philadelphia. The unions of Washington, and Baltimore were not represented. This convention gave birth to the National Trades’ Union.

The question of politics came very near disrupting it. After an exhaustive discussion, it was decided by the convention to refrain from politics.

Yes. It decided to encourage the spreading of education among the workers, for it was impressed "That the primary cause of all the evils and difficulties with which the working classes are environed can be traced to the want of a correct knowledge." Also, it recommended that "such of the working classes of these United States as have not already formed themselves into societies for the protection of their industry, do so forthwith, that they may by this means be enabled to make common cause with their oppressed brethren, and the more speedily disseminate such knowledge as may be most conducive to their interests in their respective trades and arts, as well as their general interests as productive laborers." It referred to a "line of demarcation between the producers of wealth and the portions of society which subsist upon the fruits of the Working Man’s industry."

The National Co-operative Association of Journeymen Cordwainers (1836-1837) ; the National Typographical Society (1836) ; (This union became the National Typographical Association in 1837). It was the first union to inaugurate the system of issuing union membership cards. These cards served to restrict the employment of apprentices as journeymen. A union card secured for the bearer courtesies from union craftsmen in towns where he was a stranger, where the society was in existence. The Comb Makers, Carpenters, and Hand Loom Weavers all started national unions in their trades.

Where previously the union movement had been killed by politics, the movement rising in 1836-37 committed suicide by undertaking co-operative productive enterprises through which the panic, beginning in 1837, wiped them out.

105. What was the attitude of the working class after the destruction of their unions?

The idea of economic combination survived the passing of the unions. All through this panic, which lasted until 1849, the workers were involved in a condition which they were at a loss to understand; and consequently unable to deal with. Throughout its duration, and following its passing, the wage earners instinctively felt their supreme need to be economic organization. This is testified by their refusal to adopt the suggestions of the humanitarian philosophers who offered many schemes as panaceas.

Owenism, which had a revival following 1837. It assumed forms differing somewhat from Robert Owen’s colony, established at [New] Harmony, Ind., in 1826. The most prominent of its intellectual leaders in the revival were: Emerson, Channing, Brownson, Brisbane, Greeley, Weitling. There were many others, but to these belongs the distinction of greatest prominence.

Principally co-operative undertakings, but they were not in accord with one another.

In 1844 a delegate convention attended by delegations from several states inaugurated the New England Working Men’s Association. At its second convention the co-operative associationists dominated. Robert Owen (England), Wm. H. Channing, and Horace Greeley were among the speakers. Another convention was held in the fall of 1845. This convention endorsed co-operative enterprises, and political action. The 1846 convention changed the name to the Labor Reform League of New England. After the 1847 convention this organization disintegrated, the co-operators going into the New England Protective Union, and the others taking part in the Industrial Congresses.

As an evidence of the working class ambition to achieve the 10 hour day, which was its principal feature, it undoubtedly impressed the employers and the workers. As soon as one ten-hour organization was disposed of, another took its place. We find New Hampshire passing the first ten-hour law in 1847, with qualifications. Pennsylvania followed with a restricted ten-hour law in 1848; Maine in 1848; but agriculture was not included; Ohio in 1852; Rhode Island in 1851, a qualified ten-hour law; California 1851. Georgia passed a law in 1853 making the legal day "from sunrise to sunset for all white persons under the age of twenty-one years".

Longer hours were permitted where contracts were entered into for more than ten hours per day. If a worker signed a contract to work eleven, twelve, or fourteen hours, the law was not contravened thereby. Even children whose parents or guardians gave written consent, could be worked longer than ten hours. As a result, employers made applicants for employment sign Papers, and the law was to all intents and purposes a dead letter. The working people had no organization to enforce the spirit of the law, and its letter was against them. They had a ten-hour law, and, in the absence of economic organization, they had a twelve or fourteen hour workday.

They were primarily an attempt to reconcile the different schools of social and labor opinion. The movement gradually dwindled down to a land reform association, having dropped abolition, the ten-hour day, and co-operation. It finally died out in 1856.

Apparently there were, as we find records of strikes by various working groups. From 1839 to 1852, tailors, shoemakers, printers, bricklayers, carpenters, painters, common laborers, longshoremen, and others are recorded as having struck. Some of the building trades struck twice in a year—in the spring for an increase in wages, and in the fall to prevent reductions. The printers, shoemakers, tailors, and the building trades appear to have maintained some form of organization throughout.

A tendency on the part of the skilled workmen to disregard the unskilled workers. Some labor men pointed out that the apprentice regulations sought by the craftsmen worked a hardship upon the unskilled laborers, and constituted a denial to the youth of the time. One spokesman, protesting against the apprentice system, claimed that the youth who were denied opportunity might say to the unions: "As you have cast us from your bosoms, as outcasts we will fearfully repay you."

114. Did not general movement of labor come with the return of industrial activity?

There does not appear to have been any. Attempts were made to establish central labor unions in New York City, but seem to have been without result. On one of these occasions, representatives of forty-nine societies were in attendance. The employers adopted a conciliatory attitude, and the attempt was abandoned.

It is difficult to say exactly, but in New York, 1853 and 1854, there were strikes by seventy-four different trades and callings. At this time there is said to have been forty-four unions organized in Philadelphia, thirty-eight in Baltimore, twenty-six in Pittsburg. There were some organizations in Albany, Boston, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Harrisburg, Milwaukee, Newark, New Haven, New London, New Orleans, St. Louis, Washington, D. C., and Utica, N. Y.

116. With such a degree of organization why could no general labor movement have developed?

The industrial depression which began toward the close of 1854 destroyed the organizations. A few of the stronger unions survived—printers, stove-moulders, and some others.

Very severe. It not only crushed the unions, but demoralized the working class. As usual, the politicians were on hand with their cure-alls. Large processions of unemployed marched with banners demanding or requesting consideration of their plight. Societies to aid the unfortunate were formed in the principal cities. Labor looked outside of itself for relief.

The first attempt was made, in New York, to wed the organized labor movement to political Marxism.

The Typographical Union (1850); Cigar Makers’ (1856—out of business in 1857); (R. R. Engineers) National Protective Union (1856) ; Upholsterers’ National Union (1853) ; Plumbers’ National Union (1854) ; National Union of Building Trades (1854—this union included painters, stone-cutters, carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, and masons. Other trades were invited to join); Mechanics’ Trades Union of the United States (?) ; Lithographers’ National Union (1853) ; National Silver Platers (1856); Painters’ National Union (1859) ; Cordwainers’ National Union (1859) ; National Cotton Mule Spinners’ Ass’n. of N. A. (1858) ; National Union of Iron Moulders (1859); Journeymen Stone Cutters’ Union of the U. S. and Canada (1855).

All of these did not succeed in carrying out their intention. The coming of the war of the Rebellion interfered, and nationalization of unions did not arrive until after its close.

121. How many national organizations survived the industrial depression and the war?

About five. The Typographical Union, Molders’ International Union, National Union of Machinists’ and Blacksmiths’, Hat Finishers’ National Association, and the Stone Cutters’ of the U. S. and Canada.

They did not desire it. They favored some compromise, which would leave the question of slavery optional with the several states. When Lincoln called for volunteers, however, the workers responded generously; whole local unions volunteering in a body.

Evidently there was. In 1863 Fenchers’ Trades’ Review, a labor paper, published a list of unions in sixty-one trades scattered over a wide territory.

The following list showing the number of unions in several states in 1863 and 1863 indicates activity in organization work.

Twenty-two organized trades in New York and vicinity sought wages increase in 1864. The establishment of labor papers is another sign of active interest among the workers.

There were local connections. These were "trades assemblies." The first of these "was organized in Rochester, N. Y., in March 1863. Boston and New York followed in June of the same year. Albany, Buffalo, Louisville, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, St. Louis and San Francisco had trades’ assemblies by the end of 1863. At the end of the war trades’ assemblies existed in every important centre."

They endeavored to organize the unorganized workers, by employing organizers, calling mass meetings, etc. They also, in some instances formed co-operatives. The assemblies of Albany, Boston, Chicago, and Troy helped establish stores that dealt in groceries alone. The nature of this form of co-operation is significant; it shows that the workers believed they were exploited as consumers.

The Chicago German Trades Assembly, the Philadelphia, and Troy assemblies established free libraries and reading rooms.

These assemblies were instrumental in winning many local strikes. The employers feared them, which is a good sign of effectiveness. The bosses organized to oppose them in New York and other centers. The Employers’ Committee sent out a questionnaire to their fellow employers in which eleven questions were asked, of which the fifth and sixth are as follows:

Another question was asked: "Would it be possible to enact and enforce laws, without encroaching upon the liberties of the people, that would wholly or at a considerable extent, prevent the interruption of industry and the other evil consequences of strikes." To prevent strikes by making strikes illegal. The capitalists sought that end then, and before; they are still seeking it.

127. Were any steps taken to form a general organization of labor on a national scale?

Yes. The Machinists’ Union at its 1860 and 1861 conventions went on record as favoring a national organization by the national unions then in existence. Nothing came of it.

In 1864 the Louisville Trades’ Assembly made two appeals for a national convention; the first in April and the second in August. Twelve delegates were present. A constitution was drafted. The next convention of this International Assembly was scheduled for Detroit in May 1865, but it never took place. A tendency toward political action wrecked this attempt; besides this, the Philadelphia Industrial Assembly, the strongest in the country, did not take part. This is accounted for, in part anyhow, by the fact that the national officers of the Molders and Machinists influenced that body. While they desired a general national organization, they desired the national union rather than the trades’ assembly to be the unit. Had these officers not been able to influence Philadelphia, the story of American labor might have been written in different terms.

From 1863 to 1866 several new national unions were formed; viz: Plasterers’ National Union, National Union of Journeymen Curriers’, Ship Carpenters’ and Caulkers’ International Union, National Union of Cigar Makers, Journeymen Painters’ National Union, National Union of Hatters, Tailors’ National Union, Carpenters’ and Joiners’ International Union, Bricklayers’ and Masons’ International Union.

The spinners were the only ones to organize nationally in 1867, In 1868 the Knights of St. Crispin and the Grand Order of Railway Conductors were organized. In 1869 the Wool Hat Finishers, the Daughters of St. Crispin, and the Morocco Dressers were organized.

Between 1870 and 1873 there were brought into existence: International Coopers’ Union of North America (1870); the Brotherhood of Iron and Steel Heaters, Rollers and Roughers of the United States (1872); the National Union of Iron and Steel Roll hands of the United States; the Furniture Workers; the Miners National Association; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen (1873); the Machinists’ and Blacksmiths’ Union which had 1,500 members in 1870 had reached 18,000 in 1873. The Sons of Vulcan who had 1,280 members in 1870 had 3,048 in 1873. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers which had 3,108 in 1869 had 9,000 members in ‘73. The anthracite miners had about 30,000 members, and the Knights of St. Crispin had 50,000. It is conservatively estimated that about this time there were in the neighborhood of a half million workers organized.

The Iron Molders’ Union bore the brunt of the attacks upon organized labor. The iron founders organized in opposition to this union. A national strike broke out. The molders assessed themselves generously, but eventually the assessment feature brought disfavor; so the molders established co-operative foundries in several towns. The result was an evil influence on the union feature of this splendid organization. It was not until 1879 that the union, cured of its co-operative idea, again functioned as a union.

The machinists, printers, and other organizations had their encounters with their employers. The union men made steady progress.

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers struck against the Galina and Chicago Union R. R. Co. It developed after the strike that this road had been assisted by other railroads. There was strong resentment. The B. of L. E. was a fighting organization for just one year—from August 17, 1863 to August 17, 1864—while it was headed by an enthusiast, named W. D. Robinson, who "placed his whole soul and energy at the service of the organization." He was "framed" in the convention, and charges preferred against him. A handy man for the New York and Hudson River Railway, named Wilson, succeeded him. The structure and policy of the organization was changed to suit the railroad interests. Wilson used the B. of L. E. under the direction of the American Railroad Association. He held office until 1874, when a specially called convention forced him to resign. The opposition to Wilson was led by P. M. Arthur. By special invitation Robinson was present at this convention, and vindicated so that he was cheered to the echo. Arthur followed the path for which he blamed Wilson, and you can judge how Warren Stone is travelling at the present time.

A shoemakers’ organization. It was started in Milwaukee by seven men. It spread rapidly throughout the shoe trade, having a phenomenal growth. It was primarily an effort to preserve his skill to the shoemaker, and was destined to play a losing part. It directed much of its energy against "green hands." It produced some fine labor men, many of whom were later leading figures in the Knights of Labor.

It was a general organization of labor upon a national scale. Its principal object was to have been the establishment of an eight-hour day; but at its first convention it was steered into politics. Its representation was drawn from central bodies and local unions. National Trades’ Union officials and representatives were also given seats. This was the first union to establish connection abroad. It had an agreement with the International Workingmen’s Association.

It was a national organization called into existence by a convention arranged by officers of the Iron Molders’ International Union, Machinists’ and Blacksmiths’ International Union, Coopers’ International Union, and the International Typographical Union. In addition to representatives from these unions, the miners, tobacco workers, cigarmakers sent delegates, as did the central bodies from Columbus, Cleveland, Indianapolis, and two other cities. The convention was held in Cleveland on July 15, 1873.

To avoid politics, not to take co-operation too seriously, and to devote itself to economic action. The political policy of "reward your friends" originated with this union. It lasted from 1873 to 1875. Its refusal to play politics and to gain membership at the cost of principle, these, together with the industrial depression killed it.

Enough of them depended upon politics to be the backbone of the Greenback party.

An organization devoted to co-operation. The Industrial Congress refused to affiliate with the Sovereigns of Industry and won its hostility. It lasted from 1874 to 1878. It failed to survive the depression, and dishonest officials. Co-operation had received another black eye.

The National unions were composed of autonomous locals. The centralization of power, which now amounts to dictatorship, was not invested in the national and international unions. This, it was argued, was a weakness, though that is doubtful. Another thing that was noticeable and which had a bad effect upon the labor movement was that its most capable men could not resist the temptation to use their union popularity for their own political advancement. A seat in Congress, or a good position under the government turned many of them from labor leaders to enemies of the working class. In the closing years of the ‘60 decade many organizations were swept away and all of them lost members. Gompers estimated that not more than 50,000 remained in the organizations in 1878.

Much that had been gained in wage increases and shorter hours in the eight-hour movement was lost. Many bitter strikes were fought in efforts to resist wage cuts and increased hours. The cigarmakers fought a losing strike which lasted 107 days. The textile workers resisted wage cuts, which amounted to about 45 per cent, unavailingly. The miners fought hard strikes in the 70’s and went down to defeat. Their officers did not "play the game."

The history of the Mollies has only been written by their enemies. What we do know definitely about them from their enemies is that they were "framed" and betrayed by hirelings of the Reading Railroad Company which operated large coal holdings in the anthracite regions of Pennsylvania. A scoundrel by the name of McParland was sent down into this region as a spy and agent provocateur. He incited his dupes to assist him in committing murder, or to accompany him in murdering expeditions. He was the ring-leader for a price. This fellow’s word hung ten men and sent fourteen to prison. He was hailed spotless as an angel—he had victimized the members of the Mollies and enabled the P. & R. R. R. to resume operation in their coal properties.

That is hard to answer. Gowen, president of the Philadelphia and Reading R. R., hired the infamous McParland, and again, we find him using Pinkerton detectives in the B. of L. E. Gowen had notified the engineers on his road to withdraw from the B. of L. E. They did, but they intended to pull a surprise strike. The Pinkerton spies informed Gowan who had new men to take their places.

No. There were organizations of conductors and firemen. In 1877 great headway was made in organizing a Trainmen’s Union. This was to include "engineers, firemen, conductors and brakemen on the three grand trunk lines, into one solid body," and to strike simultaneously. The strike was to have been pulled on June 27, at noon. Forty men were dispatched from Pittsburgh to notify the various divisions. At the last moment division developed, and the whole plan fell through. Was this manipulated by agents of the railroads?

There were some desperate strikers in the railroad industry. All the strikes were lost. Had the trainmen’s union been in existence, there would have been a different tale to tell, in all likelihood.

The Noble Order of the Knights of Labor, a secret organization formed in Philadelphia in December, 1869. It was originally a secret union of garment cutters, but admitted workers of every trade as "sojourners" without paying dues. These could not participate in matters pertaining to the trade.

By 1874 six assemblies of textile workers were formed. All of these were in Philadelphia. A District Assembly (No. 1) was formed in Philadelphia on Christmas Day, 1873, with affiliation of thirty-one local assemblies. From this time on the Order maintained a steady growth. It was fed from two sources: Locals of the defunct national unions joined it, and independent organizations threw their lot with it; miners’ locals, machinists’ and blacksmiths’ locals, locals of the Knights of St. Crispin, the ship carpenters’ and caulkers’ locals joined it. It spread rapidly over Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, New York and New Jersey. The opposition of the Catholic church, and other influences forced it to come out into the open, and in 1878 it aimed at being a national labor body.

The Junior Sons of ‘76, another secret order with a political bent, which barred from membership a "professional person, practical politician, speculator, corporator or monopolist" unless admitted by a four-fifths vote, invited all existing labor organizations to attend a convention at Tyrone, Pa., in December, 1875. The Knights of Labor and the Social Democratic Party of North America were among the organizations accepting the invitation.

It became the battleground in a contest between the greenbackers and the Socialists. Another convention was held in Pittsburgh in 1876.

Generally speaking, the economic idea prevailed, tho the greenbackers seemed to triumph to such an extent that the socialists withdrew from the sessions. The convention decided that it was unwise to launch an independent political party, but advised a policy of bringing pressure to bear upon existing political parties.

There were many who believed that "the veil of mystery was more potent for good than the education of the masses in an open organization." However, the desire to wield national influence forced the abandonment of absolute secrecy, and we find a convention in Philadelphia, (July 3, 1876), taking the name of The National Labor League of North America. The opposition of the Catholic church, in localities where it controlled large numbers of working people, was a force to be reckoned with. Besides, the secrecy of the Molly Maguires and its results had an important bearing upon the decision of the K. of L. to come into the open. It was done haltingly, but it was eventually accomplished.

With all labor organizations that had adopted the policy of secrecy, the intention seems to have been that this course would keep the employers ignorant of what was transpiring in the meetings and of the programs which the unions arranged. Of course, this did not prove correct. Secret deliberations provided a fertile field upon which the profession of labor spy grew like a weed. The Knights of Labor came out definitely as a national labor organization, under its own name, in 1879.

It was a mass organization. It admitted to membership all persons over 18 years of age who "are working for wages, or who at any time worked for wages" but "no person who either sells, or makes his living by the sale of intoxicated drink, can be admitted, and no lawyer, doctor or banker can be admitted."

Local Assemblies were "composed of not less than ten members, at least three quarters of whom must be wage workers; and this proportion shall be maintained for all time." District Assemblies were composed of the Local Assemblies in a locality and had jurisdiction over them. The General Assembly of the K. of L. of N. A. was the highest tribunal, and had full and final jurisdiction in all matters.

Evidently not. If it had, it would have confined membership to those who work for wages. Under the provision that those "who at any time (had) worked for wages" John D. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Schwab, and other capitalists could qualify as members. Moreover, the provision that local assemblies be composed of three-fourths wage workers implies that the other fourth need not be wage laborers. The K. of L. in its beginnings, was the direct opposite of the separate autonomous trade union, though later on it was proven not to be averse to such modifications as would permit trade unions to form out of the "sojourners" within its own ranks. The adoption of this course was forced upon it by the rivalry of the A. F. of L. , which had come into existence in Pittsburgh, in 1881, as the Federated Trades Unions of the United States and Canada, afterward the American Federation of Labor.

Following the Reading (Pa.) convention in 1878, which provided for a national central body—The General Assembly—to which all parts of the organization were subordinate.

151. Along what lines did the K. of L. propose to advance the interest of the workers?

By the use of economic action, education, and co-operation. As it grew, it found itself involved in many strikes. The Resistance Fund, raised by a per capita tax of 5 cents per month, which it had originally intended to devote to co-operative enterprises and educational purposes, was used to finance strikes. Many attempts were made to commit the K. of L. to a political program in the years of its earliest importance, but it was shy of politics at that time.

The history of the K. of L. is a series of strikes. Many of its local assemblies were involved in the great railroad strikes of 1877. There were numerous strikes into which the order was precipitated until the great telegraphers’ strike of 1883. The telegraphers struck against the Western Union Company for a six day week, an eight hour day shift, seven-hour night shift, and 15 per cent increase in wages. The strike was lost after lasting one month, from June 19 to about the end of July. In 1882 the New York Central freight handlers struck in New York city. This strike was broken in less than a month. A strike of Illinois coal mine workers (Dist. Ass. 33) was defeated, and the mine workers quit the K. of L. New York street car men’s Knights of Labor Assembly was rooted out by labor spies.

Some of the strikes were won by the K. of L.: One was the general strike in the Saginaw Valley, Mich., (1885) ; (this was a spontaneous strike by the workmen who were largely Polish. It lasted about six weeks). The strike of the Union Pacific shopmen, also a spontaneous strike to resist a wage cut of 10 per cent, was won in three days. A strike of the shopmen on the Gould system (Wabash and M. K. & T.), in the spring of 1884 which was supported by the engineers, firemen, conductors and brakemen, was also won. The Gould strike of 1885 was won, although the train crews refused to give the support they had given the preceding year. The Great 8-hour strike of May 1st, 1886, succeeded in winning the eight-hour day for thousands of workers. There were other strikes, but out of this strike grew the infamous Haymarket incident in Chicago.

In response to the eight-hour strike call for May 1st, the turnout of Chicago workers was the largest of any city in the United States. Of the 80,000 Chicago workers who struck, 10,000 were lumber shovers. On May 3rd a contingent of these lumber shovers were holding a meeting force the McCormick reaper works, when a large force of police arrived and shot into the meeting, killing four persons and wounding many. August Spies who had addressed this meeting issued a call for a mass meeting in the Haymarket on May 4th to protest this outrage. He urged the workers to come prepared to defend themselves. About 3,000 attended the meeting, which was addressed by August Spies, Albert R. Parson and Samuel Fielden, in the order named. Carter H. Harrison, Sr., Mayor of Chicago, attended the meeting. A heavy rainstorm thinned the crowd to a few hundred. When the crowd was thus reduced a force of 180 policemen marched upon it. Fielden cried out to the captain in charge: "This is a peaceable meeting." A bomb was thrown, by whom has never been learned, and a sergeant of police was killed. Eight men were tried for murder, found guilty of being anarchists, and seven were sentenced to be hanged. Spies, Fisher, Engels and Parsons were hanged; Fielden and Schwab had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. Oscar Neibe got 15 years penal servitude. Ling is alleged to have committed suicide.

Of course not. When Governor Altgeld pardoned Fielden, Niebe and Schwab he scored the unusual and prejudiced manner in which the jury had been drawn. Here is how the jury was selected. Judge Joseph E. Gary appointed a special constable, who selected such men as he, the bailiff, chose instead of drawing them out of a box that contained hundreds of names. (It is said that every man who sat on the jury had pledged himself to find the defendants guilty.) Altgeld also stated that the judge by his ruling had made it extremely difficult for the defendants’ lawyer to get consideration for the charge; that the jury had been packed; that the judge connived at getting men on the jury who admitted prejudice against the defendants, including a relative of one of the victims of the bomb; that the judge admitted he ruled without precedent when he denied a motion for a new trial; and that the personal bearing of the judge had been extremely unfair throughout the trial. Fair trial! their execution was judicial murder.

Labor’s best protests are not verbal. In the hearts of the workers there is still protest for what was done. The American Federation of Labor convention pleaded for mercy for the men, but Powderly threw his influence against any sympathic expression by the General Assembly of the K. of L., and the highest representative body in the K. of L. remained voiceless while its bravest were being done to death.

Only Powderly and his connections know. When the K. of L. decided upon the May 1st eight- hour day strike, Powderly sent a secret letter to his lieutenant throwing cold water upon the idea. Later, Powderly got a Federal job. There may be some connection between that job and his acts relating to the eight-hour strike and the Haymarket K. of L. men. Quien Sabe?

On the contrary it grew rapidly; but within a year it begin to decline. This was due in part to the hostility of the A. F. of L. , but principally to inherent defects in the structure of the organization itself. Each district was autonomous. As a result three important lockouts in 1886 proved demoralizing. The K. of L. Laundry workers at Troy, N. Y., numbering about 3,000 were locked out; 12,000 of their fellow workers joined them by walking out. After five weeks the General Secretary of the K. of L., Hayes, accepted the manufacturers’ terms and called the strike off. In Amsterdam and Cohoes, N. Y., District Assembly 104 pulled 20,000 knit goods workers out on strike. On October 16, 1886 the manufacturers locked out the K. of L. This dispute is said to have arisen out of the promotion of an apprentice to operate a new machine. After five months, in May 1887 the strike was called off.

In the Chicago packing houses the packers decided to restore the ten-hour day on October 11. They refused to negotiate and blacklisted the Knights. On November 10th, the packing bosses had decided to rescind the blacklist, when a telegram was received from Powderly declaring the strike off. This gave the Knights a black eye. Powderly’s secret circular in the eight-hour strike; his refusal to allow the Order to plead for Parsons and his fellows; his telegram on this occasion, at the time when these eight men were awaiting their fate, makes it appear that Powderly was serving some interest other than the workers.

The strike of the Coal Handlers and Longshoremen in New York on Jan. 1, 1887, which spread to include all waterfront workers, railroad freight handlers, ship trimmers, boatmen, bag sewers, involved approximately 28,000 workers. This strike collapsed.

In January, 1888, members of the B. of L. E. and B. of L. F. scabbed on a K. of L. strike on the Philadelphia and Reading R. R., and defeated them. Later, in the same year, when the brotherhood men on the C. B. & Q. struck, the K. of L. retaliated.

The unskilled workers, unable to secure advantages through the K. of L., began to fall away, until in 1891 it was practically liquidated into the People’s Party. Another labor organization was laid in a political grave.

Yes. It was developing into a class organization, and would have done so were it not for its weak, if not treacherous, leadership. The Knights of Labor grew to be the champion of the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. It had shortcomings, such as the autonomous District Assemblies, but it was developing towards an industrial form of organization, and would have but for its unsympathetic leadership. These men were handicapped by an overestimate of trades union importance. The rivalry of the A. F. of L. with its rigid forms tempted the K. of L. intellectuals to try to fashion and fit similar organizations within the Knights of Labor where they could not find a congenial atmosphere, and, consequently, could not flourish. The timidity of the K. of L. leadership, instead of making the Haymarket affair a point from which to develop, lost heart and missed a great opportunity. Many of the internationals, now organized in the A. F. of L., owe their origin to the Knights of Labor. It was a splendid organization and won the working class of America and the world an experience that will yet serve it well.

An organization started in the early part of 1878. This body aimed to unite the working class for the abolition of the wage system. Among other things, it proposed:

This union achieved a membership of about 8,000 members within the year, almost entirely textile workers. It .elected a delegate to attend the next Trades Congress of England. But a series of strikes in the textile industry, which failed, reduced the membership so that no funds were available to send the delegate. This union, through one branch in Hoboken, maintained a nominal existence until 1887, when it disappeared.

160. How many trades were organized nationally at the close of the ‘70’s?

There were in the neighborhood of thirty. There were, however, Trades Assemblies in about thirty-five cities and counties in which more than a hundred different trades were represented.

In 1881, in Pittsburgh. It was then known as the Federated Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada. In 1886 it resolved itself into the A. F. of L.

162. Was the A. F. of L. designed to be a national economic organization when created?

The call for the first convention was vague on this point. There would appear to have been an implication that the federated unions would act unitedly whenever an emergency arose. The call stated that "only in such a body (a federation of trades) can proper action be taken to promote the general welfare of the industrial classes. There we can discuss and examine all questions affecting the national interests of each and every trade, and by a combination of forces secure that justice which isolated and separated trades and labor unions can never fully command." To the rank and file such "a combination of forces" could only mean industrial joint action, while the officials might interpret it to mean whatever they desired.

The idea of a lobbying committee was put plainly, which "could be elected to urge and advance legislation at Washington on all such measures."

The idea was also advanced that "a federation of this character can be organized with a few simple rules and no salaried officers." That is an idea from which the federation has traveled very far indeed.

It has not yet become so. It is merely a political body imposed upon the affiliated international unions, whose function is to solicit consideration for labor from Congress, decide questions of jurisdiction between the component unions, but without power to enforce its decisions. It cannot order or call off strikes, nor commit the unions composing it to any program, nor prohibit anything that any of them may decide upon. It is not a national movement, but is resigned to prevent the formation of an economic movement upon a national or international scale. Only upon two occasions did it make attempts to function nationally in an economic way: First, on the occasion of the 8-hour strike in May, 1886, and again when a decision was reached in the 1888 convention to make a united effort to establish the eight-hour day on May 1, 1890. The vote favoring this suggestion was 38 to 8. The convention in 1889 revoked the decision to institute a general strike, and adopted a program whereby one union would strike and receive financial backing. After the union selected had won the eight-hour day, another union would be designated to make the demand; until the eight-hour day was generally established. For the purposes of supporting such unions as would be designated "the Executive Council was authorized to levy a special assessment of two cents per week per member for a period of five weeks."

The Carpenters’ Union was the first one selected to make the trial on May 1, 1890. The carpenters are reported to have "won the eight-hour day in 137 cities, and gained the nine-hour day in most other places." The miners were selected to make the fight in 1891, but in the months prior to May, the miners, whose organization did not include more than one-tenth of the mine workers, became involved in a strike in the Connellsville coke region. In this emergency they requested the Executive Council of the A. F. of L. to levy the assessment for their support in this strike. The Executive Council refused to do so. As a consequence, the United Mine Workers refused to strike on May 1. The barbers’ union asked the convention of 1891 to be designated as the union to make the attempt in 1892. The matter was referred to the Executive Council of the A. F. of L., where it was buried, and no further attempt has since been made. The eight-hour movement was dead as far as the A. F. of L. was concerned.

Actions speak louder than words, and are the test by which profession is gauged. It renders lip service to the idea, but, as an organization, does nothing to advance it. While it is recorded as having initiated the eight-hour strike in 1886, there is little question that this was very largely in the nature of an advertising stunt, for its affiliated unions embraced less than one-fourth of the then organized workers. Its annual receipts up to that time had never exceeded $700. It had an ambition to grow, and to do so, it was compelled to attract attention and membership. As a legislation-seeking body it had failed to impress the workers. So the 1884 convention considered two proposals: (1) a general strike for the eight-hour day on May 1, 1886, and, (2) that each affiliated union pledge two per cent of its total revenue toward creating a strike fund. This was an attempt to transform the A. F. of L. into a national economic organization. The strike proposal carried by a vote of 23 to 2. The strike fund proposition was referred to the affiliated unions. So few of these favored the idea that it came to naught. In 1888, as stated in the answer to the preceding question, a strike fund was again provided for in a modified form, but soon was abandoned,.

166. If the A. F. of L. inaugurated the eight-hour strike in 1886, how came the K. of L. to be involved in it?

The shorter workday was of surpassing interest to all labor. The A. F. of L. , with less than 50,000 members, could not hope, of and by itself, to make much of an impression. It therefore extended an invitation to the K. of L. to co-operate. This appeal was warmly received by the Knights. However, Powderly and his official family threw cold water upon the idea. The leading figures in the A. F. of L. were lukewarm. Had the spirit that animated the rank and file of organized labor in both camps been shared by the officials, a great deal more could have been done than was accomplished. Only a fraction of what was possible was secured. Moreover, the seed of enmity and resentment was planted in the minds of the workers, and a crop of prejudices had grown up amongst them that smothered their class instincts and prevented that toleration of opinion upon which working class progress must depend.

If you are an employer it is likely that you would prefer not to have an organization in your establishment which would embarrass you and compel you to grant concessions that in its absence you would not even deign to consider. It is more than likely that you would give a great deal to be rid of it. Now, when the K. of L. brought Jay Gould to terms it demonstrated that labor solidarity was equal to the power to the strongest corporations of the time. This exhibition of power was regarded by the capitalist class as a menace to be removed. That which offers hope to labor is always a menace to the employing class. Now, the capitalists saw a contemporaneous organization of workers which behaved itself in an entirely different manner. So they were prompt to take advantage of the situation. They used the A. F. of L. unions to stab the Knights of Labor in the back. This tactic of the employers inaugurated the era when the charges were hurled back and forth between the organizations that each was scabbing upon the other. The desire for membership upon the part of both was at the bottom of this suicidal conduct. The A. F. of L. temporarily enjoyed the favor of the capitalists as their choice of the least of two evils. By the time the Knights of Labor was hors de combat the A. F. of L. bore the brand of capitalist agent burned deeply and ineffaceably into it.

168. Has not the American Federation of Labor overcome some of the difficulties that beset earlier union attempts?

It has survived for over forty years, but has done so only by avoiding everything which a labor organization should have attempted. If it had aimed to be a body influencing legislation to be consistent it should have formed a political party. It has not done so. If it had aimed to influence legislation by a show of economic power it should have become a national economic expression. This it has not done. It has attempted, or pretended, to advance and improve the legal status of labor by making its appeals for consideration upon moral and humanitarian grounds. That it has not been successful as a legislative getting body is testified by the fact that the legal status of labor is on a lower level now than ever before. What laws have been secured are of a minor character, and many of these laws have been declared unconstitutional by the courts. It is capitalistic and militaristic—both anti-labor features. It never meets adverse decrees or legislative inaction with the challenge of economic power. It is a belly-crawling organization at best, which deludes the workers and holds them helpless before every onslaught of capital. Its failures in regard to labor, if not its betrayal of the labor interest, is the price it has paid for capitalist tolerance.

No. Common’s History of Labor in the United States says of the unsuccessful attempts by national unions to effect a national organization: "The initiative which was finally crowned with success came apparently from a non-trade union source. A disaffected group of the Knights of Labor, who desired to establish a rival order, called a conference for this purpose." It was significant that 68 of the 107 delegates were from the Pittsburgh vicinity and mainly Knights of Labor. Common’s history says : "The large attendance of Knights was due to fear that a rival to their order was to be established." Their fear was well founded.

About as possible as irrigating the Sahara desert with a garden hose. The A. F. of L. is capitalistic and cannot tolerate the spreading of working class ideas within its ranks. Those who preach boring from within capitalist unions are on a par with workers who pay for membership in a Chamber of Commerce to use it for the advancement of the proletarian interest. Craft unions, in our day, are not labor unions; they are gatherings of workers under the control of capitalist agents. They are not designed to further the labor interest but to restrain the laborers in the interest of capitalist property. As long as the working people regard them as well-intentioned but poorly constructed and ignorantly wielded working class weapons, attempts will be made to remodel and regenerate them. Only when they recognize them for the capitalist instruments that they are, will the workers cast them aside and fashion a weapon suitable to and capable of successfully furthering the working class end of a world-wide battle. An auger may bore a hole that will empty a tank, but a tank cannot be remodelled with an auger or a gimlet. It is impossible to change the A. F. of L. It is as impossible to change it as to change a timber wolf into a lap dog, or to make a house pet of a skunk.

It might be called a national association of labor brokers. In the first years of its existence there were some influences at work trying to mould it into a national economic body. For ten years these influences and others tending in the opposite direction were in conflict. The forces that made for an economic function were out-manouvered, and the A. F. of L. settled itself down to solicit political conventions and implore legislative bodies, while the international unions through all their branches undertook to obtain the control of jobs and to deal in labor power. The unions were prostituted from their job-regulating functions to instruments for the aggrandizement of the officialdom. For many years the official machines that have been built up have controlled these unions and used them as political levers and stepping stones to power and financial security for the official groups.

Any city craft union movement will bear out this contention. The building trades achieved great power at a time when the margin between journeymen and contractors was slight. Rival contractors vied with each other for the favor of men who stood high in union circles, and as a result vicious combinations with business and political connections were established. Slight advances to the rank and file had to be conceded, and the business agent or labor leader who fixed a deal whereby his union constituency benefitted even slightly won the devotion of the men. He became automatically a personage for politicians to connect up with and for business interests to deal with. One of the consequences was the establishment of a new, or go-between element in the union movement with their own peculiar interests to serve—neither capitalists nor workers — who shared with the capitalists and preyed upon the workers. They "called" and "settled" strikes as their interests dictated and when in their judgment situations were ripe.

Graft had become an institution in the name and under the auspices of unionism. So true is this, that, while real labor people deplore that graft, the grafters are seldom challenged or impeached; so great has their power become. This refers principally to local labor movements, but these had to depend upon national and Canadian connections. So, raised upon this basis, the international offices could only differ in the modification of the means employed. Where the business agents connected up with local politicians, the higher-up officials sat in with the Big Capitalists and national party riggers in the Civic Federation, and the whole craft union system was dominated by an influence foreign, alien and inimical to the working class interest. The so-called labor movement of the United States and Canada is a business institution for the purpose of controlling and guiding labor discontent into channels where it threatens least injury to the capitalist interest, which is only another way of saying that the least possible benefit is conferred. upon the workers.

Just that. Any visitor to an A. F. of L. convention who is conversant with and interested in the welfare of the American workers is struck by the alertness of the international officers in suppressing or diverting expressions of rank and file opinion, which challenge their wisdom and sincerity, or the effectiveness of their organizations, This convention truly represents the dominant labor movement in America. The interests or opinions of the working members have no place in its deliberations. It were far more correctly termed an annual convention of American labor-brokers. These delegates, with the exception of a scattering few with little voting power, represent the controlling influence over organized American labor power. That is their special and particular business. Unity of the workers would destroy that business, and these well-fed, well-groomed, well-paid business men cannot tolerate any idea that would deprive them of their comfortable means of livelihood and relegate them to their old working places, even the memory of which they are reluctant to renew.

If you are the average union man you joined the union, after having paid an initiation fee which you thought excessive, and dues you felt to be beyond the requirements of the union. After a meeting or two you failed to attend meetings, except upon special occasions, because you found the local dominated by an influence against which you and those who thought with you were powerless to contend. There was ever present in your mind the thought that upon being parted from your present job, or changing your present location you must find another job, either in your present location or a new one, and a union card would make it easier to do so. Moreover, as a general thing, wages, hours and conditions were better in unionized employment. So you "kept up your card." That card was a letter of introduction and a recommendation for a job in strange places and new employments. You came to regard your union expenses as an employment fee paid for a chance to obtain employment easier than without such connection. The result was that you grew to pay no more attention to local and international union affairs than you would to the conduct of any other employment agency to which you had paid a fee. You kept a union card to facilitate your getting employment. Your union you did not regard seriously as an instrument by which much greater benefits might be secured and steadier employment obtained. In fact, encountering, as you did, the ubiquitous business agent, you learned to regard him as a personage to conciliate more than the foreman or superintendent under whom you worked. He exercised more control over your life than any other agency with which you came into contact. He was one to conciliate and to "stand in" with. THE UNION WAS HIS. It was, because the union members abdicated in favor the officialdom. That is the power in which the officialdom of the A. F. of L. deals; that is their business; the business of controlling—and delivering—unassertive, docilely obedient, and submissive packages of human labor power like you.

Because it does. It has lost the militancy that marked the first ten years of its existence. Its aggressiveness was tempered by the reluctance of forces that came to control it absolutely after its tenth year. The jealous regard of the international unions for autonomy made itself felt in the adoption of the first and second sections of Article I, of the constitution. The first of these, by confining the function of the A. F. of L. to the effort of securing labor legislation, denied it the opportunity of ever becoming a national labor union; and there was retained to the international unions, in the second section, the privilege of being the only national economic expressions of their particular organized groups. Here, at the very outset of its career, the Federation became the loosest kind of a bond between the international unions. It took on the appearance of national unity, behind which was hidden permanent and unalterable division of the American working class.

The A. F. of L. really performs no legitimate function for labor, but it does serve the interests of the capitalists by making for a perpetually divided and, therefore, weakened condition of the American working class. What serves capitalism is capitalistic. Its preamble is contradicted by its constitution. The one proclaims the class struggle, the other denies it. Where "strict autonomy of each trade" prevails, it will, in the words of the A. F. of L. preamble, "work disastrous results to the toiling millions." Between unions unassociated and those separated by the rigid lines of trade autonomy there is little difference, and whatever difference there is redounds to the advantage of unassociated unions. While the fiction of unity is preserved by the A. F. of L., the industrial kinship of the different groups can never find expression.

As long as a permanent organization for soliciting labor legislation is passed off for effective combination of national unions, the organized workers are being imposed upon. If the best that more than two million workers can do is to provide themselves with a lobbying committee, some influence, that is not a labor influence, is misguiding them. And what is not a labor influence in capitalist society is a capitalist influence. There is no neutral ground.

And what have they got, these labor solicitors for more than 2,000,000 organized workers? A beggar’s portion—more refusals than laws. What laws have been conceded were of a minor character, and while the courts were empowered to decide, even these are not secure. The invocation of the Lever Act against the miners in 1919, and the Coronado decision recently, is a negation that ought to drive home to the American workers the need for some other attitude than a begging posture before legislative bodies and cowering posture before the courts. The craft union system was made to order for the capitalists.

The policy of time agreements, which originated with the employers in 1890, is an essentially capitalistic feature of craft union policy. All agreements are arranged to expire at different times. As a result, the employer whose industry is organized under the craft union system is always assured that his industrial inconvenience will be as slight as the craft system can make it. Craft unionism is insurance for the boss against very serious embarrassment. Contrariwise, it is a serious handicap and an embarrassment to the working group which it condemns to fight alone; for one set of union workers in an organized employment may strike to adjust a grievance, but the rest of the organized workers, bound by their agreements, remain at work and assist the employer—thus helping to defeat the strikers with whom they are in sympathy to the last heart beat. Nothing on earth, except the craft union system, could induce these workers to scab upon their fellows.

So often has this happened that it would be a waste of paper to set forth all of the numerous occasions. These are a few of the most flagrant instances:

The Homestead strike (1892) ; Buffalo switchmen’s strike (1892) ; Pullman strike (1894) ; Bituminous strike (1902) ; the Harriman System Federation strike (1911) ; San Francisco streetcar men (1907) ; Chicago packing house workers (1904), etc. These are only a few of the lost strikes for which the craft system of unionism is solely responsible. These were only a foretaste of what the many strikes since and the open shop drive of the present were to make the craft unionists acquainted with.

Even the agreement is being denied and arbitration demanded. To this the A. F. of L. seems to agree&#

State	Dec. 1863	Dec. 1864.
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	2	6
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	—	2
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	1	10
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	3	17
Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	2	8
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	1	7
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	—	1
Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	17	42
Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	4	9
Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	4	9
New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	4	10
New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	16	74
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	4	16
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	15	44
Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	1	7
Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	—	2
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	1	1
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	—	1