Economics Volume II: Modern Economic Problems

by Frank A. Fetter

The immediate causes of strikes have been changing in relative importance. In 1881, at the time of the very rapid organization of unions, over 71 per cent of all strikes were directly connected with wage demands (61 per cent for increase and 10 per cent against reduction). But in 1905 the total for these causes was only 37 per cent, whereas the proportion of strikes for reduction of hours nearly doubled (from 3 to 5 per cent) and the proportion of those concerning recognition of unions and union rules increased fivefold (from 6 to 31 per cent). Ultimately nearly every demand of the laborers is related to the question of wages; but these figures show that when organization is new this relationship is more immediate, whereas later more effort is directed toward securing the stronger strategic position that comes with recognition of the union.

§ 10. #Picketing and the boycott#. Picketing by strikers or their friends is intercepting and accosting all persons approaching or leaving the place of work, to inform them of conditions and to dissuade them from working there. When peaceable means fail, often there is recourse to violence both against the employer and his property and against nonstriking workers. Indeed, many persons declare that peaceable picketing is impossible, and it surely is difficult to attain in view of the temptations of human nature under the circumstances.

Almost always connected with a strike is the practice of the boycott, which is a combination of wage-earners to cut off an employer (or group of employers) from business dealings. The boycott is found in varying forms and degrees, broadly distinguished as simple and compound-boycott. In simple boycott only persons directly interested in the trade dispute refuse to deal with the boycotted person. The question arises as to who are to be deemed directly interested, whether it includes only the actual strikers in a particular establishment, or whether it includes organized workers in sympathy with them. The latter case is presented when an "unfair" list is published in labor journals. It seems that only the former case is a really simple boycott. The use of the simple boycott, the refusal of a person, or even of a conspiring group of persons, to deal with a person with whom they have an industrial dispute, appears to be a part of the elementary rights of personal liberty. Beyond that point the boycott is compound in varying degrees.[6] It is the compound form which is usually referred to in discussion and in court decisions on the subject. It is the compound boycott that has been described as "a combination to harm one person by coercing others to harm him." The compound boycott, as experience shows, has moral limits as well as legal limits. It is doubtful whether the boycott can be extended at all beyond the first degree of personal relations without becoming antisocial, whether it is the weapon of organized workers or of organized wealth. The endless-chain boycott, a measure of excommunication without limit, pronounced against an offending employer, non-union workers, and every one in any way befriending them, is an effort to drag every one else into a dispute that is primarily a private matter.

§ 11. #Effects of organization upon general wages.# The crucial economic problem in connection with trade unions is not as to their methods (that being rather a political problem) but as to their effect upon wages. There must be distinguished two questions: first, as to their effect upon the general level of wages; and next, as to their effect in raising the wages of the organized laborers alone. As to the first, the thought has sometimes been expressed by sympathetic social students outside of trade-union circles that but for the organization of labor wages in America would be no higher than they were in 1850. This seems to be assumed in much of the argument of labor leaders, for they speak as if all wages, but for trade unions, would be at the starvation level; and they credit everything above that level to the work of the union.[7] This claim is peculiarly effective in America, where wages are and always have been relatively high. But proof of the claim is lacking. As we have seen, even now fewer than 1 in 16 of all gainfully employed, and fewer than 1 in 12 of those working for contractual wages are organized. On no principle of value could the mere organization of one-twelfth of the wage-earners, without permanently withdrawing them from the labor market, explain the relatively high wages of the other eleven-twelfths. In many lines where labor is not organized, as in teaching, clerical, professional, domestic, and agricultural services, wages have risen as much or even more than in most of the organized trades. The underlying economic forces determining the general level of labor-incomes in a country are much more fundamental in nature than labor unions or protective tariffs.[8] The trade-union authority already cited seems in another passage to admit a view not essentially unlike that just expressed when he says: "Capital is increasing faster than population…. It seems therefore merely in obedience to natural laws that wages should rise."

The only reasons ever suggested for thinking that the organization of one-twelfth (or any larger proportion of the wage-earners) could in any general way raise the labor-incomes of those remaining unorganized are: first, that organized labor sometimes leads the way in securing favorable legislation; and, secondly, that if organized workers get higher wages this sets a standard which it is easier for the unorganized then to attain. Both of these suggestions may have some little validity in special cases, affecting slightly a small proportion of the unorganized workers, but neither touches fundamental causes of general high wages. Whereas, it is clear that when the unorganized laborers constitute the main body of consumers for the products of organized labor (and this unquestionably is in large measure the case) any increase in wages that can be secured through organization by a portion of the workers must, in part, be subtracted from the "real" incomes of the unorganized workers. The employer is middleman, not to a great degree the ultimate consumer of labor.[9] Some part, it is true, of the higher wage might be taken from profits or from wealth-incomes, but this would still leave the unorganized workers the losers.

§ 12. #Competitive aspect of organization and particular wages.# A different question is presented as regards the influence of organization upon particular wages, and primarily upon the wages of organized labor. The trade-union authority before cited says, "Where there are no unions wages should be lower. This is exactly the case." And he quotes: "Wherever we find union principles ignored, a low rate of wages prevails and the reverse where organization is perfect." But he later explains in part this difference: "The union men are the best workmen and often employers pay a man more than union wages. This is not surprising as no man can be a union carpenter unless he be in good health, have worked a certain number of years at his trade, be a good workman, of steady habits and good moral character." If this be true, as doubtless it is to some degree in many trades and places, it is in accordance with competitive principles that, as the elite of the trade, the organized laborers should get higher wages than those outside the unions. Moreover, the unions exist mainly in the more populous places where costs of living as well as wages range higher than in the small towns and in the rural districts. A comparison merely of wages in money in such cases is misleading as to the conditions of real income. Further, a higher standard of output prevails in the cities where organization is greatest, and older men and the less efficient that are unable to "keep up the pace" drift away into unorganized shops or to villages where no standard union rate is in force. So far as unions help to develop the intelligence and promote the sobriety and efficiency of their members, they are a positive economic force making for higher wages. The book before quoted expresses, somewhat vaguely, an opinion in accord with these facts when it says: "It is an error to think that the trade union seeks to determine the rate of wages. It cannot do that. It can do no more than affect them." And so, with organization as well as without, the wages of individuals and of classes of laborers are determined by the general principles of price as applied to their services. Where neither the employer has a monopoly in his business nor the organized laborers have a monopoly of the labor supply, there is two-sided competition in the labor bargain, and organization may help to raise particular wages inasmuch as it acts in the competitive ways above mentioned and as it helps to restore to the laborers a truer equality of competition.

§ 13. #Monopolistic aspect of organization and particular wages.# The action of organized labor is not, however, limited to the competitive field, above discussed. Wages in particular industries may, by the action of trade unions be raised and maintained above a true competitive rate. This of course can be done only in accordance with the principles of the service-value to the consumer and of service-price in the employment-market. The supply of labor is in a variety of ways artificially limited by the efforts of the unions. It may be done temporarily by striking when a failure to fill orders will cause the employer exceptional loss. Violence in strikes and boycotts is often the desperate attempt to create and assert a measure of monopoly power where of itself it does not exist, i.e., where other workers stand ready to take the jobs at the prevailing rates of wages. Monopoly is created if apprentices are limited to fewer than in the long run would be attracted into the trade by the prevailing wages. It is created if the unions artificially limit output to less than is consistent with the health of the worker. Monopoly is created if unions strong enough to keep "scabs" from getting work, fix their dues high or put other obstacles in the way of increasing the membership. Probably the most striking cases of high wages for organized labor are of this kind. The element of labor-monopoly evidently is mingled in all degrees from the slightest to a very great amount, in particular economic situations.

§ 14. #Open vs. closed shop.# The question of labor monopoly is involved in the very crucial question of the closed vs. the open shop. A closed shop (or union shop) is a shop in which no non-union men may be employed, even at union wages. Its existence is evidence that the union is strong enough to compel the employer to act on this principle and thus virtually to force all his employees into the union. The refusal of a demand for the closed shop is often the ground for a strike. Where this is so unions usually assert that the closed shop is essential to the existence of the union. If union and non-union men work side by side there are many ways in which the employer is able to discriminate so as gradually to break down the union. If business slackens, the union man may be the first to be discharged; if any preference is given it is to the non-union man. While this may be true, it would seem, on the other hand, that an unmodified closed shop, with the conditions of membership in the control of the union, creates a distinct monopoly of labor leaving the employer helpless in any wage dispute and enabling the union to enforce its every demand regardless of the competitive conditions of the labor-market for that class of services.

§ 15. #Political and economic considerations.# The question here takes on a broad aspect, Is the closed shop, and are the other policies of trade unions, morally right; and ought they to be legally sanctioned? The answer to such questions is not for the economist alone to give. The questions involve other than economic considerations. They involve moral and political considerations—not merely existing formal law, but the fundamental issue of personal liberty and of interference with the liberty of some citizens by another group acting without political authority. For example, if a workman is unable to earn the standard rate[10] and is not permitted to take less, he is forced to move to a place where there is no union, or is forced out of the trade entirely. In the latter case he probably is compelled to take a lower wage than he could get in his regular occupation. Likewise, this change artificially increases the pressure of competition and reduces the wages of others in the occupation to which he turns. So in the case of persons prevented from becoming apprentices in a trade, or kept from taking work by threats, or by the dread of boycott, or by the fear of violence, in any degree however slight, there is present an element of personal coercion by the organized laborers. This is the price others are made to pay for a favorable effect on the wages of the organized laborers. Now the strictly economic question concerns merely the part as to the effects upon wages, and the economist (as such) is going outside of his special field when he pronounces on the moral rectitude (and the desirability in law) of such acts and policies. One who fully shares the feelings of the organized workers will believe that the winning of a strike or the general improvement of the strikers' condition is so important that it outweighs the evils to other individuals and to society as a whole. Indeed, to one in that state of mind the evils appear very small or nonexistent. The economist can only issue the warning that the commonest illusion he encounters is the belief of each class—commercial, banking, manufacturing, wage-earning—that what is for its particular interest is, in a peculiar manner, for the general interest, so much as to justify favoring legislation or special exemption from the general law, or even sheer lawlessness.

§ 16. #The public's view of unions.# We may, however, observe the view of the onlooker striving to be impartial. The attitude of the public in labor disputes, and particularly in regard to the closed shop, is a vacillating one. The general public sympathizes in large measure with the unions in their efforts up to a more or less uncertain point; but the public does not like to see organized labor with the power to dictate terms absolutely to the employers any more than it likes to see employers crush the union. The unions are effective in varying degrees in strengthening the bargaining power of the workers, and accordingly the results vary not merely in degree but in kind. The public wishes to see "fair play," and up to a certain point the union is a device to get fair play. In truth, what is in the public's thought, somewhat vaguely, is approval of unions so far as they go to establish a real equality in competitive bargaining with the employers, but disapproval where the power of the union gets greater and becomes monopolistic. It is at this point that organized labor loses the sympathy of most of "the general public" outside of unions. When the union tries to force a higher wage than the market will warrant, when it strives not to establish but to defeat competition, the public condemns. It sees, tho not quite clearly, that such action makes an unstable equilibrium of wages which tempts to constant friction and discord with employers and with unorganized laborers. It sees also that if the unions force a wage higher than a fair and open market affords, this is rarely done at the expense of the employer; that in the long run it is at the expense of the purchasing public itself, including the unprivileged workmen.[11]