Newspaper Page Text
8
THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
TWO VIEWS ON THE “OPEN SHOP”
I
THE ATTITUDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN LABOR
CONTROVERSIES.
By WINFIELD P. JONES.
The most stupendous issue before the people of
this country is that raised by the conflict of Capital
and Labor. This issue turns around the question as
to whether or not a “closed,” or an exclusively union
shop or an “open shop,” or one in which union as
well as non-union labor is employed, shall be the
economic policy of the country. The union, on the
one hand, is insisting upon the “closed shop,” while
Capital, representing the employer, is fighting for the
“open shop.”
It is, of course, a matter of history that within a
score of years Capital has, through appropriate legis
lation, National as well as State, been wholesomely
restricted and restrained; while unions, on the other
hand, having during this period attained their max
imum growth, have now reached the point where, ac
cording to popular opinion, restriction upon them is
essential to the welfare of the country. That this is
true the last National election amply demonstrated,
since the primary issue before the electorate was
whether the Republican policy of “open shop” should
be approved.
There is no gainsaying the fact that the growth
and evolution of the union was a prime necessity in
the economic world for the protection of Labor as
against the aggressions of Capital; but the use of its
power, although arising through the force of num
bers, is as likely to be abused as was the attempted
misuse of enormous sums of money.
There is no ph ase of religion involved in this con
troversy. The question at issue, apart from its eco
nomic aspect, involves the application of well settled
principles of law and constitutional guarantees. While
Labor ha3 the right to organize and increase its mem
bership, Capital has an equal right to refuse to em
ploy only union men or, in other words, to maintain
“closed” shops. Agreements, whether voluntary or
coercive, between employers and unions for “closed”
shops have repeatedly been held by the courts to be
illegal as opposed to public policy; and the employer
is, of course, well within his rights in refusing to
agree to the maintenance of such shops. Collective
bargaining is, within proper limitations, an appro
priate economic means of settling controversies; but
when labor unions seek to compel employers to em
ploy only union men, thereby denying employment
to a larger percentage of the laboring men of the
country than constitute the membership of unions,
the union is trespassing upon the rights, guaranteed
by the Constitution, not only possessed by Capital of
selecting its employes, independently of their affilia
tions with unions, but also enjoyed in common by
that vast number of laboring men, who are not and
do not care to become members of a union. If, as
a result of the contest, Capital is compelled to close
its shops to the unions or to employ only non-union
labor, with the resultant destruction to the unions,
this unfortunate consequence of this titanic war can
only be attributed to the unions themselves, since
the fight was precipitated by them in their efforts to
force the adoption of the “closed” shop.
The Church occupies a strictly neutral attitude with
respect to the legal or juridical side of this contro
versy. It exhorts its followers, regardless of the class
to which they may belong, and although many of
them belong to neither class, to obey the law and
to uphold the supremacy of the courts. It does tell
the employer that he must be considerate of his em
ployes and endeavor to accord them reasonable work
ing hours, proper wages, and satisfactory working
conditions, consistent with the legitimate progress of
his business; but beyond this the Church can not go.
It tells Labor, on the other side, that it must, to the
extent of its ability, furnish service commensurate
with its compensation and be considerate of its em
ployers. It appeals, in other words, to the consciences
of its followers, and instructs them that in their busi
ness lives they must so comport themselves as to do
unto others as they would have others do unto them.
Many followers of the Church, lay as well as ec
clesiastical, have been among the leaders on both
sides of this controversy. The late Archbishop Ire
land was one of the foremost representatives of labor
in this country, while many distinguished 'Catholic
laymen have been prominent among the upholders of
the capital side of the issue. A large bulk of the
laboring men of the country, who comprise the unions,
including many of its prominent leaders, are members
of the Catholic Church; and included in its member
ship is a very large percentage of those who make
up the suffering public, who are wedged in between
the contending hosts.
The Church’s attitude, therefore, so far as the
main issue is concerned, is merely that, in the event
of determination of any phase of this issue in any
section of the country by the civil tribunals, desig
nated under the Constitution for that purpose, the
supremacy of the civil laws must be upheld and the
decrees and judgments of our courts must be obeyed.
It bids both sides to remember that at all times neither
must be guilty of conduct that does not comport with
good morals, Christian duty or the laws of the land;
(Continued on Page 15.)