BEHIND THE SMOKE

After drawing up in an article in the December Atlantic Monthly an almost categorical indictment of American trade unions based on the findings of Mr. Untermeyer in the New York Building Trades investigation. Mr. F. L. Bullard has laid down a programme for the unions in the last issue of the same publication. From the temper of these two articles one may conclude that Mr. Bullard has more fear than sympathy for Labor. It was perhaps this fear which led him to generalize so boldly from the indefensible practices of only one section of Labor--the black sheep of the whole Federation. His attack appears to be the last echo of that open shop movement which swept the country after the war.

This campaign which has proved such an impediment in the triumphal march of Labor has somehow lost its old interest, and Mr. Bullard's object has evidently been to arouse public opinion once more to do battle against this new autocracy and, perhaps, by forcing through this suggested programme, to safeguard its economic constitutions. The question is whether his programme gets at the heart of the matter or not.

Mr. Bullard's foremost declaration is for the open shop--but he does not divulge his conception of this much abused term. The open-shop which means the closed non-union shop is worse than the closed union shop, and under cover of the same terms which Mr. Bullard uses American traditions and the right of each individual to make his own bargain--many employers have tried and some have succeeded in putting through just such an open shop. Probably Mr. Bullard means some compromise between the two. Such compromises do exist but they exist either because the employers and employees understand each others' motives or because the unions in those industries are not strong enough to enforce any other condition. Shop committees are unsatisfactory in that they rarely produce capable leaders and cannot make agreements which will extend over a wide field. And Mr. Bullard's arguments for the buttress which public opinion would afford Labor if the latter would accept the open shop are inconclusive. In fact he mentions at the close of his article the great difficulty of arousing public opinion.

In all his proposals Mr. Bullard fails to touch the basic philosophy of labor--that the workingman shall receive a decent living wage and that the work shall be so spread as to give this to as many workers as possible. All the policies which he attacks--closed unions, restriction of output, closed shops--are simply means to this end. It cannot be denied that unions have achieved much for their members, nor can it be denied that the achievement has caused inconvenience and waste. The aim is just and proper; what is needed is not criticism and fear but understanding so that Labor may be taught or may learn also what means are just and proper.