THE INCORPORATION OF TRADES UNIONS
An address delivered at a meeting of the Economic Club of Boston, December 4, 1902, and published in the Green Bag, January, 1903.
Lest what I say on the advisability of incorporating trade unions be misunderstood, it seems wise to state at the outset my views of their value to the community.
They have been largely instrumental in securing reasonable hours of labor and proper conditions of work; in raising materially the scale of wages, and in protecting women and children from industrial oppression.
The trade unions have done this, not for the workingmen alone, but for all of us; since the conditions under which so large a part of our fellow citizens work and live will determine, in great measure, the future of our country for good or for evil.
This improvement in the condition of the workingmen has been almost a net profit to the community. Here and there individuals have been sacrificed to the movement; but the instances have been comparatively few, and the gain to the employees has not been attended by a corresponding loss to the employer. In many instances, the employer's interests have been directly advanced as an incident to improving the conditions of labor; and perhaps in no respect more than in that expressed by a very wise and able railroad president in a neighboring State, who said: "I need the labor-union to protect me from my own arbitrariness."
It is true that the struggle to attain these great ends has often been attended by intolerable acts of violence, intimidation and oppression; but the spirit which underlies the labor movement has been essentially noble. The spirit which subordinates the interests of the individual to that of the class is the spirit of brotherhood—a near approach to altruism; it reaches pure altruism when it involves a sacrifice of present interests for the welfare of others in the distant future.
Modern civilization affords no instance of enlightened self-sacrifice on so large a scale as that presented when great bodies of men calmly and voluntarily give up steady work, at satisfactory wages and under proper conditions, for the sole reason that the employer refuses the recognition of their union, which they believe to be essential to the ultimate good of the workingmen. If you search for the heroes of peace, you will find many of them among those obscure and humble workmen who have braved idleness and poverty in devotion to the principle for which their union stands.
And because the trade unions have accomplished much, and because their fundamental principle is noble, it is our duty, where the unions misconduct themselves, not to attack the unions, not—ostrich-like—to refuse to recognize them, but to attack the abuses to which the unions, in common with other human institutions, are subject, and with which they are afflicted; to remember that a bad act is no worse, as it is no better, because it has been done by a labor union and not by a partnership or a business corporation. If unions are lawless, restrain and punish their lawlessness; if they are arbitrary, repress their arbitrariness; if their demands are unreasonable or unjust, resist them; but do not oppose the unions as such.
Now, the best friends of labor unions must and should admit that their action is frequently hasty and ill-considered, the result of emotion rather than of reason; that their action is frequently arbitrary, the natural result of the possession of great power by persons not accustomed to its use; and that the unions frequently ignore laws which seem to hamper them in their efforts, and which they therefore regard as unjust. For these defects, being but human, no complete remedy can be found; but the incorporation of labor unions would, among other things, tend in some measure to correct them.
The general experience in this country, in respect at least to the great strikes, has been that success or failure depended mainly upon whether public opinion was with or against the strikers. Nearly every American who is not prejudiced by his own peculiar interests recognizes the value of labor unions. Nearly every American who is not himself financially interested in a particular controversy sympathizes thoroughly with every struggle of the workingmen to better their own condition. But this sympathy for the workingmen is quickly forfeited whenever the conduct of the strikers is unreasonable, arbitrary, lawless or unjust. The American people with their common sense, their desire for fair play and their respect for law, resent such conduct. The growth and success of labor unions, therefore, as well as their usefulness to the community at large, would be much advanced by any measures which tend to make them more deliberate, less arbitrary, and more patient with the trammels of a civilized community. They need, like the wise railroad president to whom I referred, something to protect them from their own arbitrariness. The employer and the community also require this protection. Incorporation would in some measure help to this end.
When, in the course of a strike, illegal acts are committed, such as acts of violence or of undue oppression, the individual committing the wrong is, of course, legally liable. If the act is a crime, the perpetrator may be arrested and punished; if it is a mere trespass, he may be made to pay damages, provided he is financially responsible; and if money damages appear not to be an adequate remedy, an injunction against the wrongful acts may be granted by a court of equity. If the injunction is disobeyed, the defendant may be imprisoned for contempt.
Now, it seems to be a common belief in this country that while the individual may be thus proceeded against in any of these ways, the labor union, as such, being unincorporated, that is, being a mere voluntary association, cannot be made legally responsible for its acts. The rules of law established by the courts of this country afford, it is true, no justification for this opinion. A union, although a voluntary unincorporated association, is legally responsible for its acts in much the same way that an individual, a partnership or a corporation is responsible. If a union, through its constituted agents, commits a wrong, or is guilty of violence or of illegal oppression, the union, and not merely the individuals who are the direct instruments of the wrong, can be enjoined or made liable for damages to the same extent that the union could be if it were incorporated; and the funds belonging to the unincorporated union can be reached to satisfy any damages which might be recovered for the wrong done. The Taff Vale Railway case, decided last year in England, in which it was held that the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants could, as a union, be enjoined and be made liable in damages for wrongs perpetrated in the course of a strike, created consternation among labor unions there, but it laid down no principle of law new to this country.
Numerous instances may be found in our courts where labor unions have been enjoined, and in our own State, more than thirty years ago, an action was maintained against a union for wrongfully extorting from an employer a penalty for having used the product of "scab" labor. But while the rules of legal liability apply fully to the unions, though unincorporated, it is, as a practical matter, more difficult for the plaintiff to conduct the litigation, and it is particularly difficult to reach the funds of the union with which to satisfy any judgment that may be recovered. There has consequently arisen, not a legal, but a practical immunity of the unions, as such, for most wrongs committed.
This practical immunity of the unions from legal liability is deemed by many labor leaders a great advantage. To me it appears to be just the reverse. It tends to make officers and members reckless and lawless, and thereby to alienate public sympathy and bring failure upon their efforts. It creates on the part of the employers, also, a bitter antagonism, not so much on account of lawless acts as from a deep-rooted sense of injustice, arising from the feeling that while the employer is subject to law, the union holds a position of legal irresponsibility.
This practical immunity of the labor unions from suit or legal liability is probably largely responsible for the existence of the greatest grievances which labor unions consider they have suffered at the hands of the courts; that is, the so-called "government by injunction." It has come about in this way: An act believed to be illegal is committed during a strike. If that act is a crime, a man may be arrested, but in no case can he be convicted of a crime except on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a verdict of the jury, and on every jury there is apt to be some one favorable to the defendant. Many acts, however, may be illegal which are not criminal, and for these the only remedy at law is a civil action for damages; but as the defendant is usually financially irresponsible, such action would afford no remedy.
The courts, therefore, finding acts committed or threatened, for which the guilty parties cannot be punished as for a crime, and cannot be made to pay damages by way of compensation, have been induced to apply freely, perhaps too freely, the writ of injunction. They have granted, in many instances, this writ according to the practices of the court of equity upon preliminary application, wholly ex parte, and upon affidavits, without any chance of cross-examination. If the courts had been dealing with a responsible union instead of with irresponsible defendants, they would, doubtless in many of the cases, have refused to interfere by injunction and have resolved any doubts in favor of the defendants instead of the plaintiffs.
In another respect, also, this practical immunity of the unions has been very dearly bought: Nearly every large strike is attended by acts of flagrant lawlessness. The employers, and a large part of the public, charge these acts to the unions. In very many instances the unions are entirely innocent. Hoodlums, or habitual criminals, have merely availed themselves of a convenient opportunity for breaking the law, in some instances even incited thereto by employers desiring to turn public opinion against the strikers. What an immense gain would come to the unions from a full and fair trial of such charges if the innocence of the unions were established, and perhaps even the guilt of an employer! And such a trial would almost necessarily be had before a jury, upon oral testimony, with full opportunity of cross-examination; whereas now, nearly every important adjudication involving the alleged action of unions is made upon application to a judge sitting alone, and upon written affidavits, without the opportunity of cross-examination.
It has been objected by some of the labor leaders that incorporation of the unions would expose to loss the funds which have been collected as insurance against sickness, accident and enforced idleness; that these funds might be reached to satisfy claims made for wrongs alleged to have been committed by the union. I can conceive of no expenditure of money by a union which could bring so large a return as the payment of compensation for some wrong actually committed by it. Any such payment would go far in curbing the officers and members of the union from future transgression of the law, and it would, above all, establish the position of the union as a responsible agent in the community, ready to abide by the law. This would be of immense advantage to the union in all its operations.
Again, it has been urged that the incorporation of the union would lead to a multiplication of lawsuits, which would involve the union in great expense; but the expense of conducting such litigation would be insignificant as compared with the benefits which would result to the union from holding a recognized and responsible position in the community.
Again, it has been urged that the unions would not fear litigation if justice were promptly administered; but that it was the dragging out of litigation which was to be apprehended. I take it that, so far as the unions have suffered from the administration of the law, it has not been from delays but from precipitancy. They have suffered at times in the granting of preliminary injunctions, injunctions which have been more readily granted because of the irresponsible position of the defendants.
Again, it has been urged that the unions might be willing to submit themselves readily to suit if the rules of law, as now administered by the courts, were not unjust to labor. I am inclined to think that there have been rendered in this country many decisions which do unduly restrict the activity of the unions. But the way to correct the evil of an unjust decision is not to evade the law but to amend it. The unions should take the position squarely that they are amenable to law, prepared to take the consequences if they transgress, and thus show that they are in full sympathy with the spirit of our people, whose political system rests upon the proposition that this is a government of law, and not of men.
Go to next chapter.
Return to the table of contents.