In my "American Letters" pubished in this journal, T-have oftes referred to the advantageous posi tion of American labour generally compared with labour in Great tain. The American' workman is the best paid on the face of the earth, but in many trades is not by any means the most satisfied. Long before the British strike there was talk of wage cutting, There has Tong been the danger in the general American situation that the "open-shop" campaign and the nation-wid campaign to reduce wages {prominently featured in the post= war boom) may be carried out by employers. In many industries there is a far, whether justified or not, among the workers that their wages may be cut. Mr. Leary beeves that "the one move would be ill-advised as the other," for "there is not in the present economic situation anything to warrant general wage reductions or adjustments." And I believe that if such policy were begun we should see very serious results in this country.
Tt is claimed that the wa situation is balanced, and to urge a eduction at the present time would strengthen the hands of the radicals and weakea those of the conservatives who are trying to keep labour fon an even keel, On the other hand, there are a good many of the unions who believe, and their attitude is on all fours with that of the administration at Washington, that more is to be gained by reducing waste of labour than by reducing the earnings of labour.
Not all the unions, however, are as yet prepared to welcome means for speeding up production. Several indeed offer rigid objection to new practices, while claiming increase in wages. But the feeling prevails in most trades that the practices that have enabled Heary Ford to concurrently pay higher wages and make higher profits must be instituted in industry generally if the American workman is to maintain the present high wage scale.
The "One Big Union"
American labour is, as Mr. Leary has it, "congenitally' conservative."
He say"that as far back as the accords go, it has been swept by wages of radicalism, and there have been times when' it seemed as though the radicals were in the saddle, Experience "has shown, however, that radicalism does not, pay, just as it has proved that the "one big union" that the "Reds" now advocate, cannot be a success. We are reminded that the Knights of Labour, now but a thin memory, was built upon "one big union" lines, and it was upon the wreckage fof the Powderly organization that the craft unionism of the Labour Federation was built. The Federation today has no power to order a general strike, Each union runs it and I find. myself totally in agreement with Mr. Leary when he says that the one thing that would be certain to wreck the Federation would be a decision by' it in convention assembled to inter-
Lesson for Great Britain is undergoing in American industry a gradual improvement in the methods of production which, Particuly Is ita lesson to Great Britain. Time doubtless will show that methods which have proved success. fal in American industry will be adopted in British industry, for there seems to be no other means hand for the worker to receive in wages. what he demands, while capital may draw its fair' profits. And it appears to the writer that what,, is happening in the United Stated (but which, because of its conservatism, has not been allowed to burst into a general strike in British) will happen in. Asiatic countries. In all industrial countries there is an insistent cry on the part of labour for great wage returns. For long we have seen it in India, and the result has been a growing tendency to strike. We: have seen it to a less extent ix China, but here the tendency is becoming more marked where foreign factories operated on modera lines have come into being. The only. solution is in the application of devices which allow of speedier and more profitable production.
All the same, this is not by any' means the "sole solution to the troubles that beset labour. Wher-_ ever men work the hand of Moscow. can be seen. It cannot be denied that the general strike such as that. which England has experienced he been the heart's desire of those control in Moscow. I spoke of American conservatism. Largely' been use when the International Federation of Trades Unoins presumed to order general strikes, the American Federation of Labour broke from that body in 1919. In the article to which I refer, Mr. Leary tells us what we all know—that the same influences that have been at work in England have been. and are at work in the United States, though he says to a lesser degree. There can be no doubt, moreover, that the big scheme of Communist sympathisers at the mo. ment is to secure a reversal of Federation's policy of no recognition of Russia. But~ in a recent! convention at Atlanta City, when Mr. A. A. Purcell (a Briton) presumed to tell the convention that it must send a commis si and recognize the existing government, President Green, of the Federation, sharply rebuked him, Jand the convention rose to its feet and cheered his declaration. This was significant proof of the wide difference of opinion that since 1914 has developed between the Jabour movements and the difference in methods between Great Britain Referring to this difference, the writer of the article inthe "I3~ dustrial Digest" says that, briefly, the difference is that, whereas 'American' movement" depen: ait economi strength and tors, the Sonatina the we bly, to"get things. isit to. ime
atciont landmarks and Srown to depend more {pon Acts of Paritament,& ith the passing 0 control by real Eeade unionists to intellectuals who fare strong on theory but who, gen-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.