Page:William F. Dunne - The Threat to the Labor Movement (1927).pdf/19



HE TIMES in a recent editorial makes a comparison between the methods of arbitration under government supervision—the logical and inevitable extension of the "union-management co-operation" policy—and militant unionism. It compares the outcome of the arbitration proceedings affecting trainmen and conductors on eastern lines with the outcome of the cloakmakers' strike, and says:

Arbitration wins, strikes lose—this is the burden of the duet sung by the right wing and capitalist press. I propose to diverge here from the main line of my argument for a moment and deal briefly with the attempt of The Times, in which it is not alone by any means, to confuse issues by an analogy which is no analogy at all.

In the first place anyone who tries to make the wage problems of garment workers appear to be the same as those of conductors and trainmen is either ignorant or dishonest. Trainmen and conductors, occupying strategic positions in a key industry, are accorded privileges by the capitalists which are denied to less favored sections of the workers. But this is no reason why these workers should adopt arbitration as a method of securing their demands. As a matter of fact, the greatest concession ever secured by these workers was gained by the threat of a general strike. (The eight-hour provisions of the Adamson law enacted in 1916.)

The 7½ per cent increase in wages given by the mediation board, seems to be a great victory when it is stated in a lump sum as The Times does ($15,000,000). But, figured out in dollars and cents per worker it dwindles surprisingly. To be exact:

The average wage of these two groups of railway workers, according to the figures of the railroad labor board, was $5.71 per day in 1925. Based on a thirty-day month (this is far above the average, but I am inclined to be generous) this would be a monthly income of $171.30.

The garment workers secured an increase of $2 and $3 per week and in addition a reduction of hours from 44 to 42 for the first half of the life of the agreement and a 40-hour week for the last half. Neither are the gar-