THE STATISTICAL ASPECT OF THE STRIKE. GROVER G. HUEBNER. Chapter I, Introduction (1) Definition of Strike. (3) The Right to Strike. (3) Preeminent Importance of the Element of Movement. (5) Why there is Misunderstanding as to the Statistics. (6) The Three Important Controversies. Chapter II, The Increase or Decrease of Strikes (A) The United States (a) Statistical Methods Explained. (b) Absolute Increase. (a) Number of Strikes. (b') Number of Establishments Affected. (c) Number of Strikers. (d') Number of Employees Affected. (e') Working Days Lost. (f') Wage Loss. (c) Relative Increase. (a') % of Gainful Workers on Strike. (b') % of Gainful Workers Affected by Strikes. (c') % of Wage Earners on Strike. (d') % of Wage Earners Affected by Strikes. Page 75 79 79 (e') % of Manufacturing Wage Earners on Strike. (f') % of Manufacturing Wage Earners Affected by (g') % of Workers in Fifteen Trades on Strike. (d) Conclusion. Chapter II, The Increase or Decrease of Strikes-continued. (1) Early History in Important Foreign Countries. (b) Number of Employes Involved in Strikes. Chapter III, Development of the "Causes" of Strikes... (1) The Mistaken View Relative to these Statistics. 103 108 108 (a) Standard Causes (Wages and Hours) generally Decreasing in Importance. (b) More Questionable Causes Generally Increasing in Importance. (c) Effect of this Movement upon the Success and Failure of Strikes. (d) Possible Significance of the Statistics of "Causes." (a) Relative to the Increase of Strikes. (b) Relative to the Question as to Whether the (c') Relative to the Policies of Tradeunionism. (B) Foreign Countries 120 (1) Early History of "Causes" in Important Foreign Countries. (2) Later History of "Causes" in Important Foreign Countries. (3) Comparison with the United States. Chapter IV, Effect of Tradeunionism upon the Strike... (1) Opposing Views. 128 (2) Effect upon Increase of Strikes. (3) Effect upon the Development of "Causes." (4) Effect upon Success and Failure of Strikes. (5) Effect upon Duration of Strikes. (6) "Commercialization" of the Strike. Chapter V, Conclusion 145 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. What is the strike? Least among the various controversies concerning the strike is this simple question. It is sometimes maintained that the strike is merely 'a cessation of work."1 Then this is corrected by holding that it is a "concerted cessation of work," thus bringing in the element of combination. The former is obviously incorrect, but the latter is generally accepted, particularly by the courts and in legal definitions, as it provides a basis upon which to justify the right to strike.2 This right to strike, however, cannot rest upon the right of combinations to cease work. When men strike "they are still the employer's workmen in some sense; they still refer to the shop as their shop and to him as their employer; and he is likely to speak of them as his workmen, both parties implying that there is still a tie of some kind between them." " A strike involves; 1st, a temporary combination; 2nd, a temporary cessation of work; and 3rd, an attempt on the part of the strikers to retain the places which they have temporarily vacated.* This last element makes the strike a wholly different matter than the cessation of work on the part of a combination for a certain purpose. To prevent other workmen from accepting the vacant position is not to assert, but actually to deny their right to cease working. The right to strike cannot, therefore, rest ethically upon the workmen's right to cease working in a concerted manner. It must rest upon their right to work, rather than upon their right not to work. In other words, the strike is a manifestation of the doctrine' that a workman, at least to some extent, "owns his job." The strike "may be defined as a temporary combination of wage-earners to affect come purpose-by a concerted cessation of work during which active measures are taken to retain the places which they have temporarily vacated.” It is of interest to determine the course of development of this institution, as it is without doubt the foremost method" employed by the laboring classes to improve their conditions as well as to enforce other demands. Aside from the boycott, the strike and the threat to strike are the chief weapons employed in forcing concessions from the employer. Undoubtedly, many advantages are peacefully secured, and, while some of these are made voluntarily by conscientious employers, it cannot be denied that others are the result of fear on the part of the employer. Such concessions must be regarded as the indirect result of the strike. It is a means both for good and for evil; and being intimately connected with both the defensive and aggressive activities of the wage-earner, the history of its growth may throw some light upon several of the problems which are today the cause of discussion in the field of labor. The purpose of this paper is to trace the development or growth of strikes through the medium of statistics. First, it is believed that a careful analysis will disprove some of the current conclusions relative to these statistics; and second, it is proposed to draw positive conclusions respecting the development or growth of strikes. In some respects these conclusions must necessarily be more or less tentative, because most of the statistics cover a period of but twenty years and because numerous abnormal forces have undoubtedly influenced the movement even during this period. The positive conclusions must, therefore, be limited at least in some instances to what the movement has actually been in the past and to what it actually is today, rather than to what it will be in the future. Whatever 1.T B. Clark in "Employers and Employees," edited by the Public Policy,. p. 49. 2 Adams: Labor Problems, p. 175. Mitchell: Organized Labor; Howell: Trade Unions-Old and New, p. 230. movement the statistics may indicate for the future, must be regarded as to some degree tentative. The primary purpose is to indicate what the evolution of strikes has actually been in the past and is today. It is, therefore, essential that the statistics be studied, not from the standpoint of a stationary condition, but from the standpoint of the movement which they designate from time to time. It is not so important to ascertain the total number of strikes that have occurred during a given period as it is to determine whether strikes are increasing or decreasing and of what that increase or decrease really consists. Again, while it is interesting to know how many strikes have been declared for one cause as compared with another during a given period of twenty years, it is more pertinent to determine what "causes" are increasing in importance and what "causes" are decreasing. It is because of the failure to view these statistics from this standpoint of growth, that much of the misunderstanding has arisen. The statistics of "causes" of strikes in the United States for the period of 1881 to 1900 have, for example, been studied as a single bulk for the entire period. It is then said that nearly three-fourths of all the strikes are due directly to demands concerning wages and hours. Such a statement, on the one hand shows nothing of value, and on the other is misleading. The real importance of these statistics of "causes" must be found in the movements from time to time which they indicate. Viewed as single bulk, they would indicate that causes other than wages and hours need hardly be considered: but viewed from year to year, they necessitate a very different and much more complicated conclusion. The second reason why there is misunderstanding as to the statistics of strikes is found in the method of statistical tabulation. The existing strike statistics of the United States have for the most part been tabulated and explained upon several different occasions. In spite of that the simple proposition of whether or not strikes in the United States are increasing or decreasing is still a disputed matter. These statistics have Gilman: Methods of Industrial Peace: C. D. Wright, in N. A. Rev., Vol. 174; . S. Dept. of Labor, 16th Annal Rept.: U. S. Ind. Com. Rept., Vols. 17 and 19. |