Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/371

 342

THE GREEN BAG

let us say, that the labor unions drive men out of employment unless they join the union and that they have no right to do so. The answer is, the unions have a right to drive men out of employment by the means by which they in fact do it, viz., by getting their job. That is competition and is law ful. The union men and the non-union men are both looking for work, and if the union men can get a job away from the non union men, they are justified in doing so. When the union gives the non-union man an opportunity to keep his job by joining the union, that is a concession which the union is not obliged to make and which softens the harshness of the competition. It cannot be alleged as a fault against the union, much less as a distinct kind of coer cion. If the union has a right to compete for business, the charge of coercion of any kind has no force. The kind of coercion involved is the kind which competition implies and justifies. The discussion, pro ceeding in an orderly way, should first take up the question whether unions have a right to compete. If they have, all else follows as a matter of course. It may be objected that this answer does not fully cover the case, that, under the contract to employ only union men, non union men may be and often are discharged without filling their places, in which case the excuse of competition fails. If we ac cept this view, the only effect is that the union niust not ask for the discharge of non-union men unless it is ready to fill their places, and that the contract must be so drawn as to express this. This would not seriously hamper the unions, as, with their large membership and the system of affiliation in vogue, they have a great advan tage over isolated organizations in regard to supplying labor. But we are not called upon to make even this concession. On the contrary, we assert the right of the union to make a contract which will have the effect to exclude outsiders absolutely, and require their discharge without pro

vision for filling their places. The union, if it has a right to compete, is justified in refusing to admit outsiders as co-laborers with its own members as a measure of selfprotection. Its strength lies in the fact that its members act as a unit in dealing with the employer, and to get the full benefit of that, it needs to avoid colaboration with competitors. The object of the union is to maintain a certain standard in regard to wages and other terms of employ ment. If the staff of workmen in a shop or factory includes non-union as well as union men, the latter may underbid the former and render the position of the former inse cure and their efforts abortive. The advan tage and importance to the union of holding aloof from others is apparent; only thus can the full benefits of organization be ob tained. If, therefore, the unions are called upon to give a reason why they choose to work separately from others, the reason is given and their right so to do would seem to be put beyond question or cavil. To deny them the exercise of this right is to require them to renounce the advantage to them of separate employment for the benefit of others. But the law does not require one workman to consider the inter ests of others. When the conduct of the union is de scribed as an attempt to force men to join the unions, the argument has a certain plausibility, but its force entirely disappears when we reflect that the only compulsion used is to compete with them and thus make it for their advantage to join the unions. As well might it be said that a tradesman who outstrips his competitor in business, gets his trade away from him, and then offers him a partnership, is guilty of forcing the latter into the partnership. In the popular use of words it may be true that the one has forced the other to the wall and forced him to accept an offer which he did not want to accept, but there is no coercion in a legal sense. In what has just been said we have re