for industry is permeating their non-union employees. They merely attempt to control the movement by promulgating constitutions of their own. Some economists have scoffed at this movement in much the same way that trade unionists do on the ground that democracy cannot be handed down from the top. They have charged that the employees are often indifferent to the employers' industrial democracy plans, and that the representatives have to be hand picked. But were not the early parliaments in England similarly handed down to the people, and were not the burgher representatives from the towns hand picked? On this point Edward Jenks writes:

"Only by the most stringent pressure of the Crown were Parliaments maintained during the first century of their existence; and the best proof of this assertion lies in the fact that, in those countries in which the Crown was weak, Parliament utterly ceased to assemble. The notion that Parliaments were the result of a spontaneous democratic movement can be held by no one who has studied, ever so slightly, the facts of history.""

May not the constitutions of these employee representation plans and the decisions under them develop democratic governments and democratic law-making in much the same way that European parliamentary government has developed? History will not permit us to assume that there is but one road to democracy. The employers promulgate their own constitutions in the form of employee representation plans because there is insistent demand for representation in industry. If these plans fail to establish real constitutional government they will not survive in competition with an effective trade unionism. If they do survive it will be because these plans, although promulgated in the first instance by employers, also develop into a real constitution for industry similar to trade agreements. It is therefore important to study the rules and decisions made under the employee representation plans, along the same lines that we have here sketched for the study of union agreements, to see if here too sovereignty is shifting, and democratic constitutional government is being established.

The movement for more control by wage-earners over the conditions of their employement, over wages, hours, and shop rules has been going on for so long a time, and in so many industries and widely separated countries, that it can not be put down as "History of Politics, p. 133.

a mere momentary claim of labor during a period of industrial unrest. In the words of Professor Cheyney:

"Such a continuous movement as this, so analagous to the movement for political democracy, so wide in its extent, can not be expected to stop short of some great epoch-making change. It obviously has all the characteristics of evolution in human society. It is part of the organic growth of the community.'

15

15Cheyney, E. P., "The Trend toward Industrial Democracy,” Annals of the American Academy, July, 1920, p. 9.

AMERICAN TRADE UNIONISM-DISCUSSION

DAVID A. MCCABE.-We are grateful to Dr. Barnett for bringing his analytical study of American trade-union membership down to date. I agree with his conclusion that union membership is in the course of a recession much greater than ten per cent. I shall devote my time to a further consideration of the position of the railroad unions. There are good reasons, to my mind, for expecting that most of the railroad unions will share in the general recession and that some of them will lose heavily.

There is no doubt that the labor provisions of the Transportation Act and the decisions of the Railroad Labor Board retaining so much of the substance of the so-called “national agreements" made between the unions and the Railroad Administration, have been of great assistance to the shop-craft unions and the miscellaneous unions, as distinct from the old Brotherhoods, in holding their membership. These unions are undoubtedly in a far better position now than they would have been if the roads had been left free to abrogate the national agreements and to make the attempt to return to more localized bargaining with the shop crafts and to try to dislodge the miscellaneous unions entirely. Yet, despite the large measure of protection given them by the Act and the Board, the shop-craft and miscellaneous unions are in a far less favorable position than they enjoyed in February, 1920, the last month of government control.

First, as to the functioning of the national unions in the redress of individual grievances. Dr. Barnett has pointed out the great significance of this function to the individual worker on the railroads. He has rightly emphasized the importance of the retention of so many rules embodying the highly prized individual rights of which he spoke. But-and this I think is also of importance-the system of national adjustment of claims arising under these rules, that of the national adjustment boards, has not been retained.

The national unions occupied a highly favorable position under the national adjustment board plan. These were joint boards to which the individual workers who felt aggrieved by the application of the rules by their own roads, or by disciplinary actions, could have their cases brought for final determination. They were joint boards, not tripartite boards. They were made up of equal numbers of representatives of the Railroad Administration and the national unions concerned. Moreover, the national union was practically the agency through which the case of the individual workman reached the proper board on appeal. Naturally enough, the individual worker looked upon the national union as the protector of the rights which he so highly valued. This fact, over and above the part played by the national unions in securing the establishment of these rules, was of

undisputed value to the national unions in obtaining and holding the allegiance of the workers.

The national adjustment boards were discontinued after the roads were returned to private management; and, although the Transportation Act authorizes the formation of such boards, subject to an appeal to the Railroad Labor Board, the roads have refused to reconstitute them. A number of western roads have combined to establish a regional adjustment board and a regional board has been projected for a few eastern roads, but these boards are to include only the older Brotherhoods. The roads have not formed, and there are indications that they will not agree to form, regional adjustment boards for the shop crafts or the miscellaneous occupations.

It is unlikely that any system of adjusting individual grievances and claims will prevail that will be as favorable to the national unions as the national adjustment boards. In the cases of the shop crafts and miscellaneous occupations, the practical functioning of the national union may be very seriously curtailed. If the roads refuse to set up joint boards of any wider jurisdiction than the single road or system, the advantage of membership in a wider organization is reduced. To be sure, the national union would be useful in carrying appeals from the road board to the Railroad Labor Board. But what the national union can get from the Railroad Labor Board is likely to be less than it was able to get from its own national adjustment board in the days of government control. If each road has its own joint board, and if the individual worker can vote for his representative and get easy access to the board, regardless of union membership or non-membership, and if the workers generally come to have confidence that they can get redress from their road boards in any case that would have a fair chance of success before the Railroad Labor Board, the hold of the national unions on their members will be greatly weakened.

With respect also to the other great function of national unions, that of collective bargaining for wages and general conditions, the position of the national unions is weaker than it was in February, 1920. It must not be forgotten that it was the Railroad Administration, and not the roads, that introduced the national basis in collective bargaining for the shop crafts and extended collective bargaining to the miscellaneous occupations. It is true that the Transportation Act gives the workers the right to continue to use the national unions as their agents in the determination of wages and other conditions if they so choose. But recognition of this right in the law and by the Board is far different from willing recognition by employers anxious to reach a settlement with the unions and from the generous recognition accorded by the Railroad Administration. Since the roads went back

to private management, no big issue has been settled by direct agreement between the roads and the respective unions. Successful collective bargaining on a large scale has been suspended.

What we have, it seems, is de facto compulsory arbitration. matter of wages the Board has given and the Board has taken away. The national unions have functioned as advocates, rather than as bargainers. Judicial determination has succeeded to the earlier joint determination by the unions and the roads, with all the elements of bargaining strength entering in, and the later joint determination by the unions and a sympathetic Railroad Administration. And the fighting strength of the unions in interest is not one of the seven factors that the Transportation Act requires the Board to take into consideration in reaching its decisions.

How will this change affect the unions? Will it not weaken them with that large class of workmen who will belong to labor organizations only when, and so long as, they see some individual advantage to be gained through union membership which will be lost if they do not support the union? The old Brotherhoods may hold their membership nearly intact, through tradition and because of the greater willingness the roads have shown to deal with them than with the other unions. The shop-craft unions have an element of strength also in the desire of those craftsmen who may anticipate seeking employment at some time outside the railroad shops to belong to the national unions in their respective crafts. The miscellaneous unions are in the weakest position, and I think we may expect a relatively large recession of membership in this group from the 1920 figures.

M. B. HAMMOND.-The figures given by Professor Barnett to show the growth of trade unionism in the United States from 1913 to 1920 doubtless represent the situation as accurately as it can be portrayed from such sources as are available. His figures are in substantial agreement with those gathered and published by the International Labour Office at Geneva. Incidentally, it may be remarked that while trade-union membership has had a phenomenal growth in the United States since 1913 its growth elsewhere has been even more remarkable. The figures published by the International Labour Office show that while the trade unions in the United States have, roughly speaking, doubled their combined membership since 1913, they have in the world as a whole trebled their membership during the same years.

We are more concerned, however, with the significance of this growth than with the mere fact of increase. Ordinarily, one would point to such a rate of growth as an indication of the growing importance of the trade union as an institution in our social and industrial life. This may be a true interpretation of the statistics For most countries I am inclined to think it is the true interpretation, but I am