The philosophy of the shop stewards' movement, in their own words, is, workers' control of industry, beginning in the shop, and industrial unionism, in preference to craft unionism.

This is the opinion expressed in "British Labor and the War," by Paul U. Kellogg, and Arthur Gleason (p. 162). They say further (p. 164):

"As brought out on the Clyde, the shop stewards stand for something more far-reaching and constructive in its implications than the right to strike. They are asserting the right to an increased share in workshop management. They are doing it without consultation with the old-line officials of the union. ('We do not recognize them,' said Kirkwood) and they were acting through an organization of shop stewards, representing unofficially all the shops in the district." According to this view of the situation, the shop stewards' movement, far from fading away, is likely to increase in importance as the radical element gains further control in the labor movement of Great Britain. This movement is in direct opposition to the plans for industrial reorganization, that start with the government, with employers, and with the unions.

"While . the government plans Whitley Committees (with the consent of the employer and the worker), and while far-seeing employers encourage them, elsewhere, the workers themselves elect their own stewards, their own. committees, and set going from the bottom up the movement toward workers' control, which in its various embodiments will dominate industrial reconstruction in England.

"The shop stewards are those who have broken with tradition at the place where the fight is hardest in their own organization, in their own workshop" (p. 167).

CHAPTER XII

The Closed Shop and the Open Shop

The conflict between many employers on the one side and organized labor on the other, in regard to the so-called closed shop and open shop systems, is an old one. The question is discussed in the Encyclopedia of the American Federation of Labor, page 304. The Federation's argument is that the term "closed shop is a misnomer, used by opponents of organized labor to create a prejudice against the union shop, which is not closed but open to all who will join the union. The Federation declared in 1903 that the "open shop" belongs to the same category as the nonunion or "scab" shop. It argues that

"The so-called open shop influences wages and the standard of life to the downward course, for it is based upon the sycophancy of the most docile, and the most immediate needs. of those in direst distress, of the poorest situated among the workmen. Agreements or joint bargains of organized labor with employers depend for their success upon the good will of the union and the employers for each other. Neither should be subject to the irresponsibility or lack of intelligence of the non-unionist, or his failure to act in concert with, and bear the equal responsibility of, the unionist. Hence, the so-called open shop makes agreements and joint bargains with employers impracticable, if not impossible. The union cannot be responsible for non-unionists, whose conduct often renders the terms of the agreement ineffective and nugatory." This question, and many others in the same field, are treated in a collection of the writings and addresses of Samuel Gompers, president of the Federation, recently published under the title "Labor and the Employer," which is one of the most interesting collections of documents for this discussion. Chapter V is entitled, "The Union Shop and the 'Open' Shop." One of the points that are made by Mr. Gompers and others is in favor of what they call the "Preferential" open shop, as a compromise arrangement, according to which members of the union would be given preference over non-union men in employment.

The renewed movement in favor of the "open shop" has changed from the old idea of the employers dealing with unorganized, individual, non-union workmen, to that of their deal

ing with the workmen of their own shop, organized and represented by their own shop committees, not subject to outside influences or orders. The movement has taken two entirely distinct, not to say opposite, forms. One of these is revolutionary and inimical both to the American Federation of Labor and to organized capital. It is backed by the I. W. W. and other subversive elements, and this phase can be illustrated by reference to the first part of this report. The establishment of such shop committees is urged by Lenin and the Third International as the best means for "boring in" for the purpose of destroying trade unionism.

The other influence back of the "open shop" committees is that of the workmen and employers who wish to deal with each other independently of influences outside of their particular shop or business. It will be remembered that in the Steel strike the leader of the strike movement, Fitzpatrick, acknowledged in his testimony before the Senate committee that he had never been inside a steel mill, and that he knew nothing of the different wage scales in the industry which he was attempting to disrupt. The Steel Corporation argued that men absolutely ignorant of conditions in a business should not be allowed to represent its employees and create artificial discontent. The second form of shop committee, just described, takes on various aspects according as the committees representing the shop are formed only of representative workmen dealing with their employers, or are formed of a mixture of representative both employees and employers. There are many large employers who maintain that there is no necessary conflict between the shop committee system in this form and the trade union system, if no coercion is exercised by the trade union to oblige workmen to join, and no attempt made to fasten the stigma and personal danger of "scab" to non-union

men.

Seattle is experimenting with the open shop as the basis for the city's industries. All employers got together in an industry based upon the open shop, which they called the American plan. It allows no discrimination against non-union labor and insists upon the freedom of every individual to give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

The closed shop question which, for a time, had fallen into the background, has again become one of the burning questions.

An article entitled "The Closed Shop to the Bar," in the "Forum," of December, 1919, takes up the question from a legal point of view. It reviews the decisions of judges of the Federal courts in cases of this character that were brought before them. The first case cited is the notable, oft-quoted opinion of Justice Pitney in the Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. case in West Virginia:

"An injunction issued by District Judge Dayton to re strain union interference with contracts entered into between the Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. of West Virginia, and their employees, to conduct an open shop, was sustained by the Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Pitney. The plaintiff sued John Mitchell, the labor leader, individually, and officers of the United Mine Workers of America, which included leaders of local districts Nos. 5 and 6 of the U. M. W. A. A long list of union officers was included in the complaint, which set forth that said defendants have unlawfully and maliciously agreed together, confederated, combined and formed themselves into a conspiracy, the purpose of which they are proceeding to carry out.' The complaint declared this purpose to be to shut down the mine, to render the plants idle, and thereby to injure its contracts, ' until such time as plaintiff shall submit to the demand of the union to unionize the plant.'

"The usual demands which sustained the union policy of a closed shop were made, which practically compelled the plaintiff to employ only union labor subject to the orders of the union. The opinion of the court based its decision for a restraining order upon various definite conclusions, all of which have a direct bearing upon the present cause of strikes. The fact that the U. M. W. A. was a voluntary union, unincorporated, is particularly pertinent.

Judge Pitney says:

"The organization known as the United Mine Workers of America, and its branches, as conducted and managed at the time of the suit and for many years before, was a common law conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade, and also and especially a conspiracy against the rights of non-union miners in West Virginia.

"That the defendants, in an effort to compel the plaintiff to enter into contractual relations with the union relating to the employment of labor and the production of coal,

although having knowledge of express contracts existing between plaintiff and its employees which excluded relations with the union, endeavored by unlawful means to procure a breach of these contract by the employees.

"The vice-president of a sub-district of the union visited. the mines, called a meeting of the miners, and addressed them in a foreign tongue, as a result of which they went on strike the next day, and the mine was shut down."

When the strike failed, the men were employed, not as members of the union, but with the understanding that the mine henceforth would be run as a non-union or open shop. The Court decided that it found proof of conspiracy, among other things, in the following statement of one of the officers of the United Mine Workers:

"When we organize West Virginia, when we organize the unorganized sections of Pennsylvania, we will organize them by strike movements. No one had made the statement that we can organize West Virginia without a strike."

The methods employed by 'strike movements' as demonstrated in this particular case, consisted of open defiance of the nonunion employer. A certain employer, for instance, operating the Richland Mine, was told that if he did not recognize the union, his mine would be shut down. In almost every specific case employees of the open shop were defiantly intimidated by agents of the closed shop.. Union organizers were sent into the mines to conduct a campaign of organization, although such organizers knew that contracts existed between the employer of the open shop and his employees. This interference of the union organizers with those contracts were, as the Court expressed it, "a violation of the express provisions of the agreements" in operation in the open shop.

The Court expressed the opinion that the strike movement to unionize the miners was merely a step toward unionizing the mines. He says:

"If there be any practical distinction between organizing the miners and organizing the mine, it has no application to this case. Unionizing the miners is but a step in the process of unionizing the mine, followed by the latter almost as a matter of course. Besides, the evidence shows, without any dispute, that defendants contemplated no halfway measure,