have struck for an increase of wages. I see no way of determining the justice of their position, except as it is determined in the case of other monopolies, i. e. by an examination of the reasonableness of the rate or wage which they have fixed. A similar procedure is recognized as just in the case of industrial monopolies such as railroads, and if the law is to permit the formation of labor monopolies, it must provide that protection for the general public which alone makes monopoly tolerable.

In short, the justice of the general policy of the closed shop can only be decided by the ultimate objects and general character of the trade union which pursues that policy. The policy of the closed shop makes for wider combination, wider combination means greater power, and greater power is desirable or undesirable as it is wisely or unwisely used. Monopoly in the hands of the Locomotive Engineers has worked little but good; in the hands of the Window Glass Workers it was violently abused. The critic answers, perhaps, that the policy of the closed shop deprives men of their "sacred right" to work, and suggests that the judgment in accordance with intent is vague and impracticable. The writer replies that the condemnation of the policy would deny other men their equally "sacred right" of refusing to work, and points out that as necessity has forced our courts to

1 We are dealing here with the abstract justice of union policies, with the view to the formation of a rational public opinion. From the legal standpoint our argument leads directly to something very akin to compulsory arbitration. And that is exactly what we now have in industrial monopolies, where the quarrel is between the employer and the consumer, not between the employer and the laborer.

judge strikes in accordance with their intent, and restraint of trade in accordance with its reasonableness, so necessity is forcing us now to judge trade unions in accordance with their objects, and the acts of labor monopolies in accordance with their reasonableness. Combination is the order of the day; it can be regulated, but not extirpated; it is a menace only when it is violent, extortionate or unreasonable.

(d) Regulation of Wages. It is frequently asserted by critics, and the charge is perhaps the most serious that can be directed against labor organizations, that the whole tendency of the latter is to stifle competition, and that by their insistence upon a standard rate of wages in particular, they reduce to one dead level the efficient and the inefficient workman, and thus interfere with the competitive struggle for existence upon whose continued operation progress depends. To this charge the defendants of organized labor answer emphatically that the union rate of wages is always a minimum, never a maximum rate, and that the stubborn maintenance of this minimum does not suppress competition for employment, but merely improves its character. "All that it does is to transfer the pressure from one element in the bargain to the other -from the wage to the work, from price to quality. If the conditions of employment are unregulated, it will frequently pay an employer not to select the best workman, but to give the preference to an incompetent or infirm man, a 'boozer' or a person of bad character, provided that he can hire him at a sufficiently low wage, make

him work excessive and irregular hours, or subject him to unsanitary or dangerous conditions. If the employer can not go below a common minimum rate, and is unable to grade the other conditions of employment down to the level of the lowest and most necessitous wage-earner in his establishment, he is economically compelled to do his utmost to raise the level of efficiency of all his workers so as to get the best possible return for the fixed conditions.""

The argument that the union rate and other common rules do not operate to suppress competition, but merely to improve its character, holds good whether the union wage be a minimum or a uniform rate, and appears to be as unanswerable as it is important. But the assertion that the union rate is a minimum and not a uniform rate is only partially true. That it is partially true appears from the facts that a large number of unions do not object to piece work, and in a few of the older and more powerful organizations, such as the printers' and iron workers' unions, the faster and more skilled workmen often receive extra wages with the full acquiescence of their fellow unionists. That it is partially untrue appears from the facts that a large number, probably a majority, of the labor leaders strenuously object to piece work; that except among the Coal Hoisting Engineers, the opposition to the grading of wages is practically unanimous; that a few unions limit the amount which piece-workers may make in a day or week; and that a few other unions boldly dis

1 Webb, Industrial Democracy, pp. 716, 717.

courage any departure, either in excess or defect, from the union rate. "This Association," says one of the by-laws of the Journeymen Stone Cutters' Association, "thoroughly discourages the principle of more than one rate of wages.” And the secretary of the Stone Cutters expressed a common sentiment when he wrote to the Industrial Commission: "If a man is known to accept pay beyond the regular rate he is said to be taking blood money, and he is despised as much as a man who works below the rate."

While there is, thus, no unanimity either of sentiment or of practice in this matter, the most impartial investigators report that the union regulation of wages does tend to produce greater uniformity. But they qualify their conclusion by calling attention to the following facts: First, the union rate of wages is usually higher than the competitive rate would be. Consequently, if wages are leveled, they are leveled up, not down, so that the earnings of the superior workmen are not reduced, even though the earnings of the inferior workmen are increased. Secondly, the superior workmen are employed more regularly than the unsatisfactory workmen, and are likely to be assigned to the more delicate and interesting work. Finally, union regulation does not eliminate what may be called the normal territorial variation of wages. In a large majority of American unions the regulation of wages is left to the locals, and this results in the greatest diversity of rates. In 1900, for example, the standard

rates of the Operative Plasterers varied from $1.75 to $7 a day, in different parts of the United States.

With the piece-system, standard rates may be employed without leveling wages, and the unions are not uniformly opposed to the piece-system, as is generally believed. A majority of trades in which piece work is possible, accept that system. In Great Britain Mr. and Mrs. Webb ascertained that out of 111 unions having 1,003,000 members, 49 unions with 573,000 members insisted on piece work; 24 unions with 140,000 members willingly recognized piece work; and 38 unions with 290,000 members insisted on time work. In the United States a similar investigation was made by the Industrial Commission. Out of 50 important unions in which piece work was possible, 28 accepted the piece system in some line of their respective trades without active opposition, while 22 unions either forbade or actively opposed the system.

In explaining this diversity in Great Britain Mr. and Mrs. Webb point out that in some occupations such as spinning, the intensity of the labor is determined by the employer himself, who fixes the speed of the machinery. In such occupations the workers insist upon piece payment in order to prevent forcing and over-exertion. In other occupations, and in repair work generally, it is impossible to estimate in advance either the skill or the time that will be required on the job, and here the unions for obvious reasons insist upon time rates. In general, according to Mr. and Mrs. Webb, unions accept or reject