which bargaining operates, by raising the standard of efficiency of the laborer, facilitating the invention and introduction of labor-saving devices, and maintaining that security and tranquillity which are conducive to the free investment of capital. Per contra, the good effects of collective bargaining may plainly be negatived by resisting the introduction of machinery, by undermining the standard of efficiency through underhand restriction of output, by harassing and intimidating capital through needless strikes, violence or petty opposition, or by monopolistic restriction of numbers which aims to increase wages in one trade by decreasing the normal supply of labor.

The trade union to be successful does not need to be monopolistic. As a matter of fact the best and most suc cessful trade unions are those that are least monopolistic in their methods and policies. Above all else it should be noted that a vitally important distinction exists between monopoly and monopolistic methods. The smallest, meanest and most insignificant labor unions are often the most exclusive and most monopolistic in their methods; while great national organizations, like the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, which have succeeded in attracting into their ranks practically all the workers of a given trade in the country, frequently thrive and flourish with the broadest and most tolerant policies. Combination,

then, may be useful, even though it be not complete; and complete combinations are not to be condemned merely because they are potential monopolies. In labor as well as in industrial combinations, it is monopolistic action and

not potential monopoly, that requires suppression by law and public opinion.

8. Methods and Policies: The most superficial examination of labor organizations as they now exist, is sufficient to show that many of them do thrive without anything approaching a complete combination of the workers in their respective trades. On the other hand, it is just as evident that practically every trade union, like every trust, is anxious and eager to effect a complete combination. The reason is evident. The first and most essential function of the labor organization, as has been shown, is collective bargaining; and the ease and effectiveness of collective bargaining increase directly with the proportion of effective competitors included in the combination. Without dwelling upon these obvious facts, we may pass to the methods by which labor organizations attempt to make their combinations complete.

(a) Inclusive Methods: The most natural way to establish complete control is to induce all the workers in the trade to join the union; and the great majority of American unions prosecute this work vigorously and incessantly. In inducing non-union men to enter the fold both persuasion and coercion are used. The coercive action expresses itself generally in the familiar strike or boycott against the employment of non-union men. The justification of this attitude has been discussed in the chapter on strikes. Here it is sufficient to say that the feeling against the non-unionist is as universal as it is deep; that nearly all unions oppose the employment of non-union

men by every legitimate means within their power, and that the "closed shop," either as a practical rule of action, or an immediate ideal, is deliberately sanctioned by an enormous majority of trade unionists. The persuasive work, on the other hand, takes the form of systematic organization, for which large sums are expended. Thus the United Mine Workers, in 1902, kept twenty salaried organizers in the field in addition to a large number of special organizers who were paid a special fee for every local which they organized. The American Federation of Labor employs a much larger force of organizers, and almost all the national unions have at least one officer who is specially charged with this work, frequently the vicepresident. In criticising the monopolistic spirit of trade unions, then, it should be borne in mind that the great majority of unions maintain an attitude of cordial invitation to the qualified workers in their respective trades.

(b) Exclusive Methods: The completion of a combination may evidently be facilitated by reducing the number of workers, and in consequence most unions supplement their "cordial invitation to join" with certain measures which in one way or another tend to reduce the number of capable craftsmen. These measures fall naturally into two groups, those regulating the entrance to the trade, and those restricting the membership of particular unions. It is necessary to consider these in some detail.

(1). Entrance to the Trade. Trade unions endeavor to regulate the entrance to the trade in a variety of ways. Occasionally, but very occasionally, they enforce rules

concerning promotion or progress within the trade. Similarly, one or two trades attempt to prohibit or at least discourage the employment of women, as do the Upholsterers, who forbid their members to work in any shop that employs women except as seamstresses. But for the most part, the trade unions have frankly accepted the general employment of women as inevitable, and are now bending their energies to the organization of women, so that where they compete directly with men, they will be governed by the same standard rates and common rules. The important policies in this connection deal with the regulation of apprenticeship.

The general facts with regard to the regulation of apprenticeship are discussed in Chapter XI, where it is pointed out that except in a few trades the regulation of apprenticeship by the union is a failure. This failure is probably a good thing from the standpoints both of the trade union and the general public. The apprentice regulations are not framed with the prime object of improving the industrial education of the young workman, and they have no general effect in suppressing boy labor or preventing the replacement of adult workers by children, because when boys are prevented from learning in the few union shops in which apprenticeship is regulated, they simply press into the non-union shops and the unorganized trades, The limitation of child labor can only be accomplished by general legislation, in the enforcement of which, however, the trade unions might be far more helpful than they now are. Again, the few unions which

have acquired sufficient power to regulate apprenticeship, often display a strong disposition to restrict unduly the number of apprentices. With an apprenticeship term of three years and an allowance of one apprentice to ten journeymen, the present force of journeymen would gradually die out, since the average working period of the laborer is certainly less than thirty years. Finally, and this fact seems conclusive, the regulation of apprenticeship is not necessary to the successful working of a trade union. In England, the cotton and coal mining industries may be cited as examples of "open trades" in which the unions are unusually successful. while in the United States the railway brotherhoods, the United Mine Workers, the Carpenters and Joiners, and, in fact, most of the large unions, are in practice, if not in theory, completely "open."

(2). Restriction of Membership. Trade unions not only attempt to restrict the entrance to the trades, but they sometimes restrict the entrance to the unions, and as the locals in nine unions out of ten, perhaps, have complete autonomy with respect to the admission of new members, this exclusiveness may become as complete as the local unions desire. The legislation of the national unions, however, throws some light upon the general attitude of trade unionists towards this subject. Of 94 national unions which the writer has investigated, 20 have passed no provisions relating to admission of members, 38 provide merely that the applicant must be a competent workman, 18 require that the applicant shall have served