A Phase of the Antagonism
Between Labor and Capital

W. J. Strong

[An address delivered at the annual banquet of the Life Insurance
Underwriters' Association at the Athletic Club, Chicago, 17 April, 1900]

There is nothing inherent in capital that should make it antagonistic to labor. Neither is there anything in labor that should make it antagonistic to capital. When I speak of capital I use the word distinctively. I do not mean wealth when I say capital, but I mean that part of wealth which is engaged in productive enterprises. There is something in wealth in its broad sense that is antagonistic to labor -- the wealth that dissipates itself in riotous living; and my use of the word capital means only that part of wealth which is the brother of labor, that works with labor in the productive enterprises of this country.

We all know that every productive enterprise in this country to-day of any moment is organized into a corporation or a trust; and we, the party of the third part, are interested in knowing why these labor difficulties arise. What is the cause of the differences between that part of wealth called capital, and that part called labor? From my study of this question I am firmly convinced that the difficulty arises wholly from the refusal on the part of capital, which is organized, to recognize labor in its organized capacity.

The mistake the laboring men in this country make is that they do not call their unions associations, that they do not call their walking delegates and their business agents superintendents or general managers. If the labor unions were called associations, and their business agents superintendents or general managers, the public would appreciate the position they occupy. There is something about the word association that suggests velvet carpets, mahogany desks, Havana cigars, silk hats and patent leather shoes. But the word labor-union suggests to the mind greasy overalls, dirty hands, blackened faces, and brogans.

The main antagonism between labor and capital, in my judgment, comes from the failure on the part of capital to recognize the right of labor to act in its organized capacity. They say to the laboring men: "We will treat with you as individuals. If you have any difficulty with us come to us as individuals." Labor might as well say to the corporation: "We refuse to treat with your business agent or superintendent. We wish every stockholder to come here and listen to our complaints. Your business agents are arbitrary and unreasonable, and are working for nothing but to hold their own jobs." The business agents and the walking delegate of the labor union occupy the same position to their organization that the superintendent and general manager do to the corporation and the trust. And until organized capital recognizes labor in its organized capacity these antagonisms never will be settled.

Now the party of the third part, you and I, are interested in this question. We belong to neither element. Every labor union that was ever formed in the history of the world is but an organized protest against the greed of organized capital. The whole civilized world today is organized on the cooperative plan. We each of us give up many of our individual rights for the protection of organized society. And for the capitalist to stand back and say, "I do not propose to allow any labor union to dictate to me what help I shall employ," is merely a question of pride, and must give way to the rights of the party of the third part, whose business is being interrupted by these labor difficulties. Capital must be forced if necessary to treat with labor in its organized capacity. I claim that inasmuch as capital is organized into corporations and trusts represented by business agents called superintendents and general managers that they must recognize the same right on the part of labor to organize, and to appoint its business agents or superintendents to treat with capital in the contests that arise between employer and employed. When capital recognizes this right, the antagonisms which now exist between labor and capital will be greatly reduced, if not entirely done away with.

A striking example has occurred in the late strike of the machinists of this country. The International Association of Machinists demanded that capital engaged in the production of machinery should organize itself into a national association. They insisted, on the other hand, that they should organize into a national association, and that one of these associations should treat with the other in its organized capacity. The machinery manufacturers of this country had sense enough to appreciate the force of this proposition. The laboring men did not demand a scale of wages that would make an equal amount of wages to every man regardless of his qualifications. But they did demand that a minimum rate of wages should be given to every man that worked as a machinist. They offered to the capitalists this, that every man who belonged to their association must be a man who had served four years at his trade, which is a guarantee to the employer that this man and every man that belonged to their union was capable at least of earning the minimum rate of wages. Nothing was provided in their demands regarding the rate that might be paid to the more skillful men. They demanded shorter hours, and their proposition was a guarantee to the manufacturer that any man who belonged to their union was capable at least of earning the minimum rate of wages. They did not demand and do not demand that every man shall receive the same pay regardless of his ability, but they say that a man who has served an apprenticeship of four years is capable of at least earning the minimum rate of wages. There is nothing in their contract which prevents a manufacturer from paying a skillful man more wages than an unskillful man. There is nothing which prevents him from recognizing genius; and on account of the strength of the proposition they made the manufacturers, the National Metal Trades association finally agreed to settle their difficulty by arbitration.

The walking delegate has been much abused by the manufacturers. Mr. W. J. Chalmers said before the industrial commission that the labor trust was worse than all other trusts. It is necessary for us, the party of the third part, in discussing these questions to consider, first, what a trust is. A trust means a combination in some industrial enterprise that absolutely prevents competition; that has the power to limit production and to fix the price. A trust in the labor world is impossible for this reason. Every moment a man is born into the world. He becomes a laborer. There is no power in labor organizations to compel him to join their unions, and there must necessarily be an element of competition all the while on the part of labor.

Another feature of the labor organization is that they do not attempt to limit production, but they try all the while to extend it. Hence the main element of a trust cannot exist in a labor union, and a labor union never can be a trust, A man is growing every minute to come in competition with his fellowmen. He has his desires, and a principle that every student of economics recognizes is that every man seeks to gratify his desires by the least possible effort. If he joins a labor union it is because he believes it is to his advantage. There is not a possibility of labor ever becoming a monopoly, owing to the fact that you cannot control the output; neither can you limit the price.

Capital says to labor: "The price of labor shall be regulated by demand and supply." This is a false economic theory. There is something in labor above supply and demand. Labor is not pig iron, wheat, corn, beef or any other inanimate object. It has an element in it that reaches down to the bottom of civilization. It has the human element in it. It is not a commodity. It never will become a commodity. But so long as human beings struggle for a higher and a better life, labor which has hewed this nation of freemen out of the wilderness will struggle for a better education, for more sunshine, for more music, for more opportunity to cultivate the arts and science. It is the aspiration of the human soul to do something besides drudge. Labor, the giant, does not know its power. And whenever it does realize its power and acts in concert it always succeeds.

Capitalists through the whole history of the world have been blind to this fact. George Eliot, the greatest writer of the century, said: "They say that knowledge is power; but who hath duly considered the power of ignorance? What it hath taken knowledge centuries to build up, ignorance has destroyed in a single night." Never in this contest between labor and capital has capital succeeded when brawn and muscle have been thoroughly aroused. Will not the capitalists of this, country realize that they are fighting against a principle that is as certain as the law of gravitation in the realm of physics, that they must go down in the crush and devastation of riot if they do not recognize this human principle in labor? Until organized capital says to organized labor: "We will recognize you in your organized capacity; we will treat with your organizations as just and right; we admit that you give stability to the industrial world by furnishing us competent, skillful men," until capital recognizes this great fact that organized labor must be treated in its organized capacity, and that its business agents and walking delegates are merely prototypes of the superintendents and general managers, this contest between labor and capital for labor's just share of the wealth produced by it will never stop. Until that is done the contest now going on will not cease. Labor must be recognized in its organized capacity or the irrepressible conflict now existing in this world will go on until something more terrible occurs in this country of ours than was seen in the French revolution. There is enough virility and manhood left in American labor to insist upon this right of labor which is the source of all wealth, and that labor must be recognized in its organized capacity; and the sooner capitalists realize that the sooner will these antagonisms cease. They demand the right to be recognized themselves in their capacity of corporations and trusts. Labor, on the other hand, says: "We demand recognition of that kind. Our business agent is the superintendent of our concern. He is the general manager of our concern." Every laboring man that belongs to a union is a stockholder in that concern.

The individual is afraid of the black list, afraid to assert his rights, because he knows if he leads his fellow men he is barred forever from pursuing his trade. They use that as a silent coercive method to subjugate labor, and the determination of organized capital in this country is to subjugate labor to the condition of serfdom.

Mrs. Henrotin, one of the best known women of this city, in her testimony before the industrial commission, related the case of a mother and daughter working in one of the sweat shops in this city, and showed to the committee that the mother and daughter worked in finishing pants for the trade at ten cents per dozen, and that the combined earnings of the two for a day was 35 cents. She demonstrated to that committee that the sole cause of that condition among the laborers who make clothing for the wholesale clothiers was the lack of organization, and that wherever labor has been organized the unions have exercised the power and have brought about better wages, better sanitary conditions, better citizenship and more humanity than has been found in other cases.

When capital recognizes right of labor to organize and treats with labor in its organized capacity, recognizing the business agent and the walking delegate as the legitimate representative of labor, that condition of affairs so eloquently described by Macauley will have come to pass: When no man was for party

But all were for the state;
And the rich man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great;

and all questions between union and non-union labor will be solved, as all laborers will join the unions in order that they may have the protection of the unions, and reap the benefits of the organization, as they will immediately see that as individuals they are helpless. Some capitalists see this already, and are doing all they can to prevent the consummation of so desirable a state, by using non-union labor as a foil to destroy the unions.