CHAPTER XXII

WHAT OF THE FUTURE?

"WHAT is the chief purpose of your life as you see it?" This question was one day put to William B. Wilson.

"Establishing industrial peace," answered the Secretary instantly.

Establishing industrial peace has been the life work of the Secretary. Labor leaders-and he has been a labor leader most of his life-in many quarters are supposed to thrive on turmoil and strikes. But this big, ruddy, earnest miner has always been an advocate of arbitration, adjustment, and peace. Moreover, this attitude has been impressed upon the entire Department of Labor. Any opinions of employers to the contrary are incorrect.

"Industrial peace," he said in explanation of his answer, "is both an economic and a sociological necessity. It is not an idle dream, but a practical possibility. The chief requirement in achieving it is ability on the part of those dealing with issues as they arise to put themselves in the other fellow's place; to view the question from all sides fairly and justly.

"To a degree there is partnership between labor and capital. Their interests are parallel in the matter of securing a maximum production with a minimum effort. Only beyond that point do their interests diverge. Then comes the question of a division

sympathy of the people as you have today, you be mobbed and lynched by them.

"There is another thing which you should ber. If the masses were at the point of sto they would not be content to wreak vengea▾ you. Law and order would be pushed asi fact of your striking would not eliminate + There would still be food, and the masses w the shortest cut to get this food. This wo in havoc, destruction, and the disruption of from which we all would suffer for year of you to consider this most carefully."

As the result of this talk to these men, ar sponding talk by the President to the railroad a compromise was reached whereby Congre te the Adamson Bill, for which the Administ curred much blame. Let me say, however it bill was purely a compromise, and it is on compromises that we have progressed or wide Compromise is the safety valve of demoed ciliation is the safety valve of industrial urm

Both sides profit by the reindustry.

rences, are you not apt to lose the consuming public?" some

ry replied. "In the first place, consumer, in the larger sense, is ...of the producing forces, for the taken broadly, are the consuming of arbitration is the fair and the g disputes. I am not an advocate bitration, except possibly in conheads and public utilities. In the law partment of Labor no provision was ulsory arbitration, and I am inclined ress was wise. If you compel capital result of an arbitration, capital might to operate at a loss until entirely exyou compel labor to accept it, there would : a condition of slavery. Voluntary arbitrao such objections, and in the end is most The Department of Labor believes that, Contract is satisfactory to both parties, it better not to enter into it. Furthermore,

ent of Labor has no sympathy with the advanced in Europe by a school of trade at labor can gain advantage by curtailing ; that is, by setting a low maximum for r and not permitting one to go beyond

ussing this once with me, the Secretary said: ainly I am not in sympathy with any such You will find very few intelligent labor men

of the profits, with each side humanly wanting more than the other side is at first willing to concede.

"At the point of divergence the practical, sensible thing is for capital and labor to sit down quietly as business men and argue the thing out. Mutual concessions must be made. It is much easier to secure mutual concessions after discussion when each side has come to understand the point of view of the other side.”

Here Secretary Wilson illustrated his point by describing the annual conference held in the bituminous coal mining business. In his long years of work as an officer of the United Mine Workers of America, he stood for this principle of conference and agreement, and now sees it applied to the bituminous coal mining operations in the country.

The plan is simple. It consists merely of assembling together the representatives of the operators and the representatives of the miners, usually at Indianapolis. Some four hundred representatives of operators are present and some ten or twelve hundred representatives of the miners. Their questions of difference are threshed out. The operators explain the difficulties they have encountered, many of which have not been understood or appreciated by the miners heretofore. The miners, likewise, make clear their troubles and necessities. The air is clarified by discussion and mutual understanding. Then agreements are made as to wage scale, conditions of labor and the like, with provisions in the agreements to permit them to be changed to conform with purely local conditions. Contracts are entered into for a

year or a term of years. Both sides profit by the resulting stability to the industry.

"But, in these conferences, are you not apt to lose sight of the interests of the consuming public?" some one asked.

"No," the Secretary replied. "In the first place, the interest of the consumer, in the larger sense, is always the interest of the producing forces, for the producing forces, taken broadly, are the consuming public. This form of arbitration is the fair and the just way of settling disputes. I am not an advocate of compulsory arbitration, except possibly in connection with railroads and public utilities. In the law creating the Department of Labor no provision was made for compulsory arbitration, and I am inclined to believe Congress was wise. If you compel capital to accept the result of an arbitration, capital might be required to operate at a loss until entirely exhausted. If you compel labor to accept it, there would be created a condition of slavery. Voluntary arbitration contains no such objections, and in the end is most effective. The Department of Labor believes that, unless a contract is satisfactory to both parties, it would be better not to enter into it. Furthermore, the Department of Labor has no sympathy with the old theory advanced in Europe by a school of trade unionists that labor can gain advantage by curtailing production; that is, by setting a low maximum for each worker and not permitting one to go beyond that."

In discussing this once with me, the Secretary said: "Certainly I am not in sympathy with any such notion. You will find very few intelligent labor men