Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

laws and minimum wage laws may be for them the indispensable means to becoming better organized and able later to dispense with protective labor legislation. The argument against this view that carried the day in the convention seems to me inconclusive. I, therefore, hope that further consideration may lead the federation to modify the position that it has taken. The unorganized workers need vitally the aid of the organized and powerful in securing through legislation the reasonable conditions as regards work and pay that they have not been able to obtain through free bargaining. Protective labor laws for these groups will be urged by social workers and others, whatever the official attitude of organized labor on the subject. It is greatly to be hoped, however, that the federation will not only not oppose such legislation but will support it with the same vigor and effectiveness with which it has supported protective labor laws for children and women. Only thus can it justify its claim of standing for the interests of all the wageearners of the United States, and not merely for that fraction of the wage-earners of the country who are organized and affiliated with it.

The last manifestation of a reactionary tendency is more widespread than the two I have discussed, though not yet clearly formulated in any decision or resolution. It is the underlying assumption, in much current discussion, that in some way the protective labor and social insurance legislation of Germany is responsible for the position that country has taken in the war. That that country has displayed a narrow and self-centered nationalism in connection with the war, that is menacing to the rest of the world, I am not disposed to question. That it has shown in its invasion of Belgium, sinking of the Lusitania and other acts, a brutal disregard for the rights and interests of the peoples of other nations, seems to me undeniable. The argument runs that this attitude has been the natural consequence of the protecting and fostering care which the government has shown toward the wage-earners of the country. This policy is represented as having developed a devotion and loyalty on the part of the wage-earners that have made them the pliant and willing instruments of the official and military authorities in supporting and assisting their sinister plans of national aggrandisement.

The principal defect in this argument seems to me to be that it

proves too much. The deduction drawn from it, namely, that governmental policies designed to promote the welfare of the masses are inherently dangerous and objectionable, if warranted, would lead to the absurd conclusion that the power of government must not be used to promote the interests of the governed, because this will make the governed too loyal to their government, too patriotic, for the security of the rest of the world. The fallacy in the reasoning is the identification of loyalty and patriotism on the part of a people, with the mistaken and destructive ambitions and aims which the directors of their government may conceive and attempt to execute. I grant that Germany has played a rôle in the war that justifies other countries in uniting against her. But she has entered upon the rôle not because her people are united and loyal, but because the government, over whose foreign policies their representatives have little real control, has betrayed their trust. The tragedy of Germany, as I view it, is traceable to the fact that she had not yet developed truly representative government. The shaping of her foreign and military policies was in the hands of her hereditary monarch and her hereditary nobility. This governing class suffered from the limitations which hereditary aristocracies display the world over. The authority and prestige which it enjoyed made it arrogant and self-confident. Constant contemplation of its efficiency and resources caused it to undervalue the efficiency and resources of other peoples. In short, it came to have an exaggerated idea of its own power and importance, and to believe that since it could not realize its aims by peaceful diplomacy it should realize them by force of Big Berthas and massed army corps. Such a mistake would not have been made by representative leaders responsible to their constituents for all of their official acts. Such leaders would have been less arrogant and less self-confident. They would have had a juster appreciation of the resistance which other peoples would display against attempts to force foreign institutions upon them. Above all, they would have been deterred by a clearer and more sympathetic appreciation of the terrible burdens which war imposes upon the masses.

The deduction in regard to the value of protective labor and social insurance legislation which may fairly be drawn from Germany's rôle in the war seems to me just the opposite of that which I have been criticising. Whatever we may think of the rightness

of Germany's cause, there can be only one opinion as to the vigor and efficiency with which the whole German people are fighting for it. Before the war it was sometimes said that her labor and social insurance legislation were impoverishing her industries. Her industries have shown a vitality and a wealth of resources that have astonished the world. It was more frequently asserted that they were making weaklings of German wage-earners. German wageearners, turned soldiers, have shown a determination and endurance that have rarely been surpassed. At every point the contention that well-considered and well-administered labor and social insurance laws tend to conserve and develop the health, strength and efficiency of the wage-earners of a country finds confirmation in the way Germany's industrial population has responded to the demands of the war. One is reminded of Lincoln's alleged reply when complaint was made to him that one of his successful generals was too much addicted to a certain brand of whiskey. He said that it was a pity some of the other generals did not take to drinking the same brand. Friends of the allies, instead of finding fault with Germany's labor and social insurance laws, may well deplore the fact that the United Kingdom, France and Russia had not advanced farther on the path of social legislation, which was blazed by the statesmanship of Bismarck, before this calamitous war began. It might not then have required quite such a long time to bring it to a conclusion!

The three evidences of a reactionary tendency in the public attitude toward labor legislation which I have discussed should not discourage us. They merely emphasize the fact that our Association, after ten years of earnest and fairly successful work, is still only at the beginning of its task. Public opinion is not hostile to our proposals; it is merely not yet convinced and, therefore, easily diverted by plausible objections or fallacious arguments. It is perhaps salutary that there should be a reaction since it may lead to the more careful formulation of legislative proposals, and to a better organization of the machinery for enforcing labor laws. Our task, as I view it, is to work out plans for the protection of our wage-earners that will be democratic and cooperative rather than aristocratic and paternalistic. We do not wish benevolently to impose labor laws or social insurance laws upon our wage-earners. We wish rather to convince them and to convince all right thinking citizens that such laws are desirable. We will then develop a truly

efficient social organization, organically related to our American conditions and free from any ambition to impose itself upon other peoples who may not be ready for it.

My own deliberate judgment is that the time was never more favorable for convincing American public opinion of the wisdom of our general program than it is at present. The air is filled with plans for preparedness. It should require but little argument to convince any intelligent person that the sort of preparedness which this country will need during the next ten years, while European nations are slowly recovering from the staggering losses and wastes that this war is inflicting upon them, is not so much military as social, industrial and political. It is this sort of preparedness that should be the rallying cry in all our propagandist efforts. Preparedness in vigorous, efficient and loyal citizens should be our slogan. To this end we should urge the need of protection of our wage-earners from the exhausting effects of too long hours for insufficient wages; of their protection from accident and illness and the assurance to those who suffer these misfortunes of competent medical care and adequate compensation or illness benefits; of the assistance of public employment bureaus to enable them to secure. employment, and the assurance of emergency employment or unemployment benefits when there are not enough jobs to go around; finally, of assured provision for their needs when invalidism or old age compels their retirement from the industrial army and they require such aid. We should urge the need of better relations between employers and employees, brought about by the extension of organization on both sides and participation in the administration of insurance funds to which both contribute and from which both benefit. Finally, we should urge the need of more efficient administration of labor and of all other laws by government officials, who may be entrusted with larger and larger responsibilities for promoting the common welfare as they show greater capacity for such responsibilities and become more truly responsive to the democratic aspiration for real equality of opportunities for all of their constituents. On behalf of my successor to the presidency, Professor Irving Fisher, I invite you to subscribe to this program of preparedness and to give him your enthusiastic and whole-hearted support during the year that lies before us.

IV

PROCEEDINGS OF BUSINESS MEETING

« AnteriorContinuar »