No abstract

No abstract

It is a popular fallacy that trade unions foment strikes and that striking is their reason for being. To this the trade unionist says: &dquo;Young and weak unions have many strikes; old and strong ones have few. If unions were mere striking machines, the opposite would be true. &dquo; The importance of moderation is insisted upon by most labor leaders. Collective bargaining is the ultimate goal of nearly all trade unions, and to reach it not only organization but discipline is needed. Strikes are dangerous to the organization and costly. Hard experience has taught trade union officials that something more than enthusiasm is necessary to .win a strike; and, while it may be true occasionally that a union thrives on opposition, a strike is not to be considered an end in itself. If the strike is lost, the better wages and conditions obtained by previous effort may be lost also. Experienced union officials, therefore, count the cost before entering on a struggle with the employer. The &dquo;get-richquick strike method,&dquo; as it is called, is termed a failure. Paradoxical as it may seem, young and inexperienced unions often disintegrate after a strike is won, because it is easier to rely on promises than to continue the union and pay dues. But the retention of higher wages and better working conditions is usually contingent on the continuance of the union. The trade-union leader must not merely estimate the chances of success, but must also consider whether the ground won can be held. The law of the survival of the fittest has, therefore, brought about a more or less complete national control as opposed to local control of strikes in many unions, while in all there is unanimity of opinion concerning the value and need of organization and discipline. The domination of the national union over the local union usually means a conservative policy in the matter of strikes, aa is brought out more fully by the writer elsewhere.1

No abstract