صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

It is possible that by a redistribution of functions in the fields of production and price control could be established. In all save certain specific matters discretion could be left with the individual business enterprise, but in other matters the decisions might be made by an agency organized on a non-competitive basis and acting in the interest of the general welfare. The need for protecting competitors from themselves is as great in the field of production as it was in the field of banking. A plan which attempts that might run counter to the accepted principles of competitive management, but so did the plan for the reorganization of banking. The problem of controlling the business cycle is a large undertaking, and we need not delude ourselves that it can be achieved by slight modifications in the existing scheme of control.

Whether the men of this generation learn to control the institutions of the money economy depends, in large part, upon the attitude toward the problem taken by the economists. If economists continue to believe that corrections will automatically be applied by the free and unregulated operation of market forces, then the cyclical fluctuations of business may continue much as they have in the past. Those price oscillations which prevent production and disturb industry will continue, along with other price changes which are useful in the guidance of production, until the economists undertake to distinguish between the two. If the price system need not yield periodically to the action of the planet Venus, then surely it might be expected to show some resistance to the action of "natural law." Natural law in the industrial world is a statement of the consequences which flow from rules of our own making. A modification of these consequences as they appear in business cycles can be secured only by a revision of the rules. Any such revision inevitably carries with it some risks, but farmers and workers, I imagine, might be willing to share in these new risks as a means of avoiding or sharing with others the risks which they now bear alone. Economists, by participating in the revision, might help to make the new rules practicable and adequate.

THE PRESENT POSITION OF AMERICAN TRADE

UNIONISM

BY GEORGE E. BARNETT

Johns Hopkins University

The present paper falls into three parts: (1) a discussion of the growth of membership of American trade unions from 1897 to 1920; (2) an analysis of the great increase in membership since 1915; and, (3) a consideration of the factors making for the growth or decline in membership in the immediate future.

Membership is, of course, not the sole criterion of the success or failure of trade unionism. Other elements must be taken into account. The legal position of trade unions, as it changes from time to time, is a matter of moment, although as history has so frequently shown, the effect on trade unionism of adverse legal decisions is almost always exaggerated. The conception entertained by trade unionists of the relation of organized labor to the existing economic machine may very well be a determining element in the position of trade unionism. But when allowances have been made for the relatively slow changes in other factors, the movement of membership may be regarded as the most important single consideration in estimating the growing or waning influence of trade unionism. The enormous growth in the membership of the American unions since 1915 may properly be considered the most significant feature of recent trade-union history. The significance of this increase can be understood, however, only when it is projected against the background of the course of trade-union membership for a number of years.

Before attempting to sketch the history of trade-union membership in the United States since 1897, however, I should say a few words as to the statistics of membership which I am using. Since the figures of membership published by the American Federation of Labor include only the membership of affiliated national unions, and since no official bureau in the United States, either federal or state, concerns itself to assemble the statistics of national unions, I attempted some years since to estimate as closely as possible the membership of American national unions since 1897. The results of this study, covering the period from 1897 to 1914 inclusive, were published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics for October, 1916. These statistics have been carried through 1920 by the same methods used in the earlier study. It

is unnecessary to take time here to describe these methods, since they have been fully set forth in the article cited. To avoid the possibility of misunderstanding, one point however, should be made clear. The statistics which I have used include the Canadian membership of national trade unions which also have members in the United States, but do not include the membership of independent local unions in the United States. Since the membership of these local unions approximately equals that of the Canadian local unions affiliated with international unions, the figures may be regarded as fairly representative of the membership of trade unions in the United States. Even if they somewhat exaggerate that membership, the relative movement shown by the figures is correct, since the movement of trade-union membership in Canada, as we know from the very careful estimates of membership made since 1910 by the Canadian Department of Labour, has been almost identical with that in the United States.

The history of trade-union membership in the United States since 1897 may be divided into four distinct periods: (1) From 1897 to 1904, the membership increased from a half million to over two million, every year in this period showing an increase. (2) From 1904 to 1910, trade-union membership oscillated around the 2,000,000 mark, showing no trend either upward or downward. (3) Beginning in 1910, a pronounced upward movement became manifest. From 1910 to 1913 the membership of American trade unions rose from two million to nearly two and threequarter millions. This movement was reversed in 1914 by the beginning of the industrial depression and by the outbreak of the Great War. By 1915, trade-union membership had fallen to approximately two and one-half millions. (4) In 1915 a great upward movement began. This movement did not slacken with the Armstice, but continued in full force until 1920, at which time the number of trade unionists was only slightly short of five million.

From a study of the statistics two conclusions, important for the present purpose, may be deduced:

1. The increase in membership since 1915 has been unprecedented in the history of American trade unionism. In no other period of equal length, except in the years from 1897 to 1903, was there an equally large percentage of increase and at no time has the increase in absolute numbers been so great.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

2. Heretofore the recession in membership, even in times of extended industrial depression, has never been more than 10 per

cent.

If history repeats itself, American trade unionism will have at the beginning of the next period of prosperity a far larger part of the working class enrolled in its ranks than ever before. To take only the crudest comparative figures: in 1910, the membership of American trade unions was 5.6 per cent of the gainfully occupied persons; in 1920, according to the preliminary occupation statistics, it was 12 per cent of the number of gainfully occupied persons. From 1900 to 1910, the membership increased only from 3.5 to 5.6 per cent of the gainfully occupied. But the conditions under which this great increase in membership has been attained are unique and before judgment is passed upon the probable future of trade-union membership, it will be

desirable to analyze in some detail this phenomenal growth in order to ascertain whether the increase in membership was spread equally over all industries or was concentrated on a few. For the purposes of this analysis, it seems best to compare the statistics of membership for 1920 with those for 1913, since 1913 was also a peak year and a comparison with 1915 exaggerates somewhat the actual increase. I have divided American trade unions into fifteen classes, corresponding roughly to the industries of the country. Statistics of membership for these industries are only rough approximations, since it is not possible to allocate the membership of the unions among the industries in which they are actually employed. For example, all the members of the Machinists' Union have been placed under Metal and Engineering industries, although many are employed in railroad shops. But when allowance is made for these defects, certain broad conclusions may be drawn from the tables. The first is that the increase in membership in different industries has been very unequal. In five of the industrial groups, the increase has been negligible. In order of importance, they are (1) Mining and Quarrying; (2) Food, Liquor and Tobacco; (3) Theatres and Music; (4) Chemicals, Clay, Glass and Stone; and (5) Lumber and Woodworking.

In a second group of industries, considerable percentage increases of membership occurred, but on account of the small number of trade unionists in these industries, the total addition to trade-union membership was small. The industries in this group are: (1) Textiles, (2) Leather, (3) Paper, Printing and Bookbinding, (4) Restaurant and Trade, and (5) Public Service. The increases in trade-union membership in these groups was responsible for a total increase of 300,000, or less than oneseventh of the total increase from 1913 to 1920.

Leaving out of account the miscellaneous group, which is not important in numbers, the four remaining groups-(1) Building, (2) Metal, Machinery and Shipbuilding, (3) Clothing, and (4) Transportation-are responsible for 1,800,000 of the two and one-quarter million increase from 1913 to 1920. It seems obvious, therefore, that the immediate future of American trade-union membership is largely dependent upon its future in these industries.

When the increases in these industries are compared, it appears that of the increase of 1,800,000 approximately 700,000 is attributable to transportation. But even this large increase by no

« السابقةمتابعة »