The “new unionism” may be said to date from the year 1880 both in Great Britain and in this country. In Great Britain it was then recognized that unskilled labor should be admitted to the Trades-Union Congress and that missionary work to organize those trades was essential. In 1888 and 1889 the result was shown in two historical strikes in which the employees, enjoying the sympathy of the whole laboring world and of the public generally, won great victories; viz., the strike of the match-girls and that of the dock-laborers in London. As a result, the leaders of these strikes, John Burns and Tom Mann, secured control of the Trades-Union Congress, with many remarkable results. Of these may be mentioned the commencement of political activity, under favorable conditions, culminating in the formation of a labor-party, which may throw its strength to the side of any one of the great political parties which supports labor-policies; the General Federation of Trade-Unions, which in 1902 had a membership of 419,600 and in 1905 2,000,000 members; and the encouragement of municipal ownership, which has made great strides in England. To-day the Federation enjoys great prosperity and is responsible for many excellent laws passed by Parliament for the betterment of the laborer. It is especially to be noted, however, that the English unions insist on keeping the Labor-Representation Committee distinct from the Trades-Union Congress and from the Federation of Trade-Unions, believing that thereby the cause of labor is kept free from political animosities, while their political activity is less closely associated with the socialistic trend of trade-unionism. This policy has had its fruit in the promotion of John Burns to a cabinet position.
In the United States the new unionism was foreshadowed by the formation of the American Federation of Labor, the most important of our labor-organizations. It was not till 1895 that this society awoke to the realization of its possibilities, especially in the organization of unskilled and poorly paid labor. It may be said to have attained its majority at the time of the great coal-strike of 1902-3. In that strike the United Mine-Workers, under John Mitchell, successfully faced one of the largest combinations of capital that exists, the group of mine-owners and railroads that practically control the coal-product of the nation. Labor here showed its solidarity, and had the sympathy of the very people who suffered most from the strike. Between 1890 and 1900 the American federation of labor increased from about 200,000 to about 550,000, the increase coming between 1895 and 1900. In the next two years it increased to over one million, and now probably includes three millions among the members of its constituent and affiliated associations in the United States and Canada.
Another great federation of labor in this country was the American Labor-Union, organized as the Western Labor-Union in 1898 and changing its title in 1902. This organization is now known as the Western Federation of Miners. It is very influential in the mining states of the west and is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
While trade-unions were legalized many years ago in all the states and by the Federal government, and while 15 states have even forbidden employers to exclude a man from employment because of his place in a union, and though cities have required their work to be done by union labor, yet the following dangers still threaten the labor movement: It is a question whether unions do not constitute a combination for the restraint of interstate commerce in the same sense that many trusts do. Again, the boycott, which is a weapon the unions often use, has been adjudged unlawful by some courts, lawful by others. But certain acts which amount to a boycott,—as agreeing to use only goods marked by the union-label and the sending of notices to the effect that a certain house is unfair,—i. e., does not meet the demands of the union,—have been judged lawful. Congress as well as the great majority of the states of the Union has passed a law to permit trade-unions to incorporate; but, as this would make them liable to be sued by employers, they have seldom availed themselves of the privilege.
Arbitration, which involves calling in a third party, is not favored by trade-unions, except as a last resort; but they have, in cases of difficulty, been found much more willing to submit their cases to arbitration than have the employers. Compulsory arbitration is opposed, as it is felt that it would stand in the way where the union is fighting to establish a new principle, a forward step in the conditions of labor.
ARBITRATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Of foreign countries, other than Great Britain, New Zealand has led in establishing compulsory arbitration, which has also been adopted in most if not all of the states of Australia and in some of the cantons of Switzerland. In New Zealand there is a board of conciliation, which first attempts to straighten out any dispute that may arise. Either party to the dispute, however, may appeal to the board of compulsory arbitration which consists of one employer, one employee and a justice of the supreme court. Strikes and lockouts are forbidden during its operation, and its awards are enforced by penalties. Consult Sidney Webb's History of Trade Unionism; R. T. Ely's The Labor Movement in America; the Industrial Commission's Report, Feb., 1902, especially volume 17; and Reports and Bulletins of the Bureau of Labor.
