“That the Conference proceed to develop and formulate a general programme which will clearly define and establish the right of organization and collective bargaining and furnish the basis for a constructive policy to direct the relations of employers and employees during the days immediately ahead.”
Both sides, capital and labor, had agreed to collective bargaining in theory. They could not agree on its definition. Mr. Spargo’s suggestion that the Conference “define” the phrase, it seems to the writer who was present through the entire proceedings, provided a basis on which both sides might have come together with some hope of establishing an amicable basis of agreement—if such a basis were humanly possible. It was the only resolution offered that at all tended to harmonize conflicting ideas.
While the labor leaders were battling for the immediate settlement of the steel strike by the Industrial Conference, Judge Gary, who it will be remembered was a member of the “public” group, read a prepared statement giving the Steel Corporation’s attitude on this point. Judge Gary said:
I desire to make a brief statement in relation to the question under discussion as well as others submitted to this Conference. Further explanation of any vote I may register will probably be unnecessary.
Like other members of the Conference, I recognize that the public interest must always be considered as of the first importance; that all private interests must be subordinated.
I am heartily in accord with the desire of the President firmly to establish proper and satisfactory relations between all groups of citizens connected with industry, including of course what has been designated as capital and labor.
I believe in conciliation, coöperation, and arbitration whenever practicable without sacrificing principle.
I am of the fixed opinion that the pending strike against the steel industry of this country should not be arbitrated or compromised, nor any action taken by the Conference which bears upon that subject.
Also that there should be maintained in actual practice, without interruption, the open shop as I understand it—namely, that every man, whether he does or does not belong to a labor union, shall have the opportunity to engage in any line of legitimate employment on terms and conditions agreed upon between employee and employer.
I am opposed to a policy or practice which unnecessarily limits production, increases costs, deprives the workman from receiving the highest wage rates resulting from voluntary and reasonable effort, hinders promotion or advancement in accordance with merit, or otherwise interferes with the freedom of individual action.
As unorganized labor, which embraces the vast majority of working people, has no special representation in this Conference, I deem it appropriate to say that all labor should receive due consideration, and that it is the obligation and ought to be the pleasure of employers at all times and in every respect to treat justly and liberally all employees, whether unorganized or organized.
Thus, without accomplishing a single constructive result, the Industrial Conference ended. Labor, or rather the union heads, had endeavored to subvert it to promote their own ends and, failing in this effort, withdrew dramatically.
President Wilson did not abandon his hope of formulating a basis for the settlement of industrial disputes, however. He immediately called a new conference consisting of only one group, supposed to represent the public, which did not include any of the participants to the former conference, and this met and drew up a rather innocuous report. But as a factor in the steel strike the second conference might never have occurred and need not be considered here.
The strike dragged more or less wearily throughout the fall of 1919 and the early winter. Long before the end of the year it ceased to be an important factor in mill operations, and its final official calling off on January 10, 1920, was merely a formal procedure. Long before that date the whole country had realized that the labor leaders had over-played their hands and had met their Waterloo. To all intents and purposes the steel strike was ended before the middle of November.
As it proved, the method adopted by Judge Gary in fighting the strike was the best. It consisted principally of permitting the public every opportunity of judging all aspects of the case and of standing pat on the fairness of the steel companies in dealing with their men. Had the Judge yielded one iota to the demands of the labor organizers this would but have convinced the radical element in labor that they held the whip hand over capital and would have encouraged them to further excessive demands. Had the Judge, on the other hand, attempted to fight the strike by meeting violence with violence this would have alienated public sympathy. And in the final analysis public opinion is the most important factor in settling industrial disputes.
As an aftermath to the strike came the “investigation” by the Interchurch World Movement, an organization at the head of which were a number of bishops and other churchmen. A committee of this organization visited Pittsburgh and other points and presented a statement, but it was of a character entirely biassed against the Corporation, its members, in their investigation, having apparently given heed only to the arguments of Messrs. Foster and Fitzpatrick.
In the report of this committee stress is laid on the long working hours of the man in the steel mill, ignoring the fact that steel companies generally have made great effort to reduce the average of daily work and that only a comparatively small percentage of the men work twelve hours. Further, the committee attacked the Corporation on the question of wages which it declared to be below the sum required for American standards of living, its statements failing to harmonize with the findings of other obviously unprejudiced investigators including the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, which found otherwise.