page 83

The Present Problem.

No one can dispute that the economic problem is the question of the day. The opposing leagues of monopolist companies and labor unions; the aggregation of vast private wealth in democratic communities, and the depths of poverty existing in sharp contrast; the inequality of position and privilege enjoyed by the drones and the workers; the army of industrious men who can find no work, and the other army of loafers who would not work if they could—these are all factors in a problem to which neither individual wisdom nor the counsel of assemblies has yet found a solution. There are plenty of theories, and there is far too much panic legislation; but not only have most of the remedial measures failed to mitigate the evil, they have in most cases only made bad worse. Ignorance of economic laws has much to do with the failure of well-meant efforts. In Great Britian, in the United States, and in the colonies, the body of voters who attempt—often conscientiously, and to the best of their ability—to solve the problem, are in exactly the position of their fellows, who, with no knowledge of mechanics or dynamics, think they can invent perpetual motion; or ignorant alike of arithmetic and geometry, attempt what mathematicians have proved to be impossible—to find an exact ratio between incommensurables.

It has been assumed that to trades unions is due the credit of such improved relations as have taken place between master and employee. Now, from Great Britain comes the cry of the unemployed: « Our pitiful case is owing to unionism. The insane policy of strikes; its direct injury to the worker, and its crippling influence on trade, has done irreparable mischief. » This is not the whole truth: but the union leaders will not find it easy to meet the indictment. They are forced to admit that their past policy has been a mistake; and they are adopting new tactics as crude and ill-judged as the old, and which promise to be even more disastrous in their result. We refer to the proposed legislation of the new unionism—avowedly not in the interests of the public, but of a class.

Criticism is more wholesome than flattery; but of the first the unions have always been impatient: of the latter they could never have too much. Men with considerable force of character, but short-sighted and ill-instructed, have led the movement, and the mischief they have done is incalculable. In the very faithfulness of their followers lay the chief danger. Men to-day in the ranks of the unemployed—their families aided by charitable boards—looking back at the comfortable situations they threw up two years ago, against their own better judgment, now realize that their first duty was to their own households, and not to the blind leader who led them into the ditch. It is but a poor apology to plead, « We made a big mistake, but we did it for the best. »

The uninstructed labor vote is infallibly cast against labor. The « protective » duties which have made possible the existence of fortunes like those of Carnegie were insisted upon, not by the capitalists, but by the workers. Protection, like slavery, has brought about civil war in America, and the States will yet be compelled to arise and cast the shackles off. Protection, after inflating property to fictitious values in Victoria, has caused a collapse, a frightful deficit, and poverty and distress without precedent in the southern hemisphere. New South Wales, long a free-trade and steadily prosperous community, has now to suffer the same experience. The first action of the « labor » parliament was to impose heavy protective duties, and the penalty has come swiftly and surely. In the United States the labor vote now is solid for the secularization of the weekly day of rest. The labor leaders who demand a nine-hour day, want a seven-day week! Not in their own trades, be it understood; but in other men's. But if they break down the barrier, they must suffer the deluge.

Organized labor attacks all voluntary association between master and man. Deliberate attempts have been made, and are still being made, to stop, by special legislation, excellent benefit and pension societies; and the profit-sharing system is peculiarly obnoxious to the labor leaders. So is voluntary arbitration. The « arbitration » boards which they seek to establish are tribunals possessing the powers of a Supreme Court, and under their own control. They are anxious that the social problem must be solved; but they must do it and no one else. Any scheme which has not the approval of the Trades Hall must be crushed — by special legislation if necessary. And the Hall does not know its own mind for six months together. The last two years alone have witnessed remarkable changes of policy.

It is scarcely too much to say that trades unionism is a failure. The fact that it clamors for special legislation is a tacit acknowledgment of non-success. It has discredited itself by connexion with vagant anarchist and infidel agitators, who, by a little flattery could always obtain a footing. It is not only tacitly admitted to be a failure. One of the leaders at Brisbane said this much: « I have erred most grievously, and I am now sensible that unionism, as conducted at present, does not benefit the honest worker. » Another leader, compelled against his will to join a strike, after losing the results of his life's work, declared that in future « he would save his money instead of lavishing it on beings who had instigated outrages. » Another ruined workman characterized the leaders as « birds of prey whose path was marked by havoc. »

Turning from ruinous strikes and vindictive legistation, which only embitters and intensifies the evil, we find that the problem has been solved by the simple operation of good feeling and common sense; and what has been done in one community can be done in another. In Hawke's Bay about two years ago was formed a « Free Association of Employers and Workmen. » It has been sneered at and attacked in all possible ways; but has proved a success. It has 2,040 members, and a guarantee fund of £14,000. Compensation has in one year been paid to members who had met with accidents at work to the extent of £130 10s., though working members pay no subscription. Registry offices have been established, and during last year situations were found, free of cost, for 228 men.

Profit-sharing has been found to be a complete solution of the difficulty, and where it has been adopted, the workmen generally take care that there shall be profits to share. Last year Mr De Vinne, the celebrated New York printer, divided $6,250 among his 300 workmen. The division was based on the assumption that each man contributed capital equal to his income, and the bonus amounted to 5 per cent. In the Printers' Register we read of a division of profits by the old-established house of Thomas Brackell, Limited, where last July each man who had been not less than a year in the service of the firm received £6. Under profit-sharing, the workman supplements his wages by a bonus; as a unionist, he has them grievously diminished by levies, besides being liable at any moment to be « called out » altogether.

Under the most favorable conditions, disputes are liable to arise; and then voluntary arbitration should meet the case. Not spurious « arbitration » by act of parliament, backed by a star chamber with powers equal to those of the Supreme Court. That would be about as genuine as would be the pacific professions of a Peace Society with a gatling gun in reserve to enforce its friendly mediations. But the subject of arbitration is wide and important enough to require separate consideration.

The following note from an indignant mother was recently received by a master in one of the London board schools;— « I must complain about the wicked things you teach my boy—sinful things. You light a candle, put a tumbler over it and make it go out without blowing it out. »