Race Factors in Labor Unions

SOME months ago Wall Street was currently reported to be suffering from an overload of undigested securities, — the result of unprecedented industrial promotion. This situation has now resolved itself into the “ digestion of insecurities,” through the long process of financial liquidation which has been in progress since last summer. American trade-unionism to-day, while numerically prosperous beyond comparison, shows symptoms of the same disorder. The incubus, in this case, consists of a vast new and as yet but halfassimilated membership.¹ This condition of instability in labor organization as compared with Great Britain is, in part, due to the racial peculiarity of the population of the United States. Ethnic heterogeneity enormously complicates the situation for all parties concerned, but especially for the working classes themselves. Consider the situation for a moment.

For half a century about one seventh of our total population has been regularly constituted of persons born outside the United States; and for twenty-five years at least, one third of our people have not enjoyed the inestimable privilege of American-born parentage, that is to say, with both parents native born. More than half of the population of the North Atlantic States in 1900, nearly two thirds in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and three fifths in New York and Connecticut, — all primarily manufacturing communities, — was of foreign parentage, wholly or in part. True, the proportion is almost as high in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota; but these states are mainly agricultural. This proportion of alien blood, high enough for the population at large, is more marked in the cities, which are the main centres alike of industry and of tradeunionism. New York and Chicago are more than three fourths of foreign parentage. Boston and Pittsburg follow with about two thirds of their population as yet imperfectly American; while in some of the smaller industrial centres in the East, the proportion of foreign parentage rises above four fifths, — as in Lawrence, Holyoke, Fall River, and Hoboken, — almost rivaling Milwaukee in this regard. Boston is largely an Irish town ; Chicago is said to be the third largest Bohemian city in the world. It would be easy to duplicate in size many of the large cities of Europe in the foreign-born population of our municipalities. These proportions, be it observed, are for our great cities as a whole. We may push the comparison still farther by considering the proportion of population of foreign extraction, not only in the great cities at large, but in their industrial sections separately. As an example, the custom clothing trade of New York may be mentioned ; wherein, on the authority of the United States Industrial Commission, it was found that nearly three fourths of those employed were direct immigrants ; while among the tailors in the same city the proportion of actual foreigners rose to upwards of ninety per cent.

These proportions of alien blood are very marked among the so-called working-classes, recruited as they are directly from the Old World. The reservoir of our industrial population is indeed supplied from the bottom rather than the top. The data for 1900 are not yet available, but prediction is not difficult. While approximately half of the total population of the United States in 1890 was born in the United States of American parentage, only about forty per cent of the population engaged in manufactures was thus doubly dyed American. About one fourth of those so employed in industry in 1890 were born in the United States, although their parents were foreign born ; and nearly one third of the industrial class was constituted of actual immigrants. Such being the condition, how great is the task of the tradeunionist in the attempt to bring these aliens into any permanent organization, foreign as they are to one another and to us in every detail of life. Not only a large number of undigested trade-unionists has to be dealt with, but a mass of imperfect Americans as well. In 1900 there were a million and a quarter white persons in the United States who could not speak English, this being about one eighth of our foreign-born population over ten years of age. Even when by the use of interpreters — and the United Mine Workers sometimes have to use three or four different ones in their general meetings — these foreigners can be made to understand what is up, consider how various are their social standards and customs. What is mere bread and meat to a Swede may be cake or taboo to a Russian Jew, according to the dictum of his rabbi. A subsistence minimum to a German is luxury to a Pole. The old adage about “ fleas upon fleas ” finds application here. The English and American workman is underbid by the Scandinavian. He in turn is cut under by the Jew and Bohemian. The Pole will take less even than these, and finds at last his standard of living undermined by the Syrian and the Armenian. Even the lowly have their different social standards to uphold. The Jew will not permit his wife to work in a factory, and insists upon sending his children to school; while the Italian is the hardest of taskmasters to his own family. The Polish factory hands are predominantly women and young girls. The Bohemian will not allow religious scruples to interfere with his livelihood, while the Jew must observe his religious holidays at any cost. The Finns and Syrians prefer to work, if at all, in bunches, under their customary clan rule. The individualistic Jew will throw up his job rather than work in a factory, subjected to its necessary and rigid discipline. Then again the workmen all have their political antagonisms and inherited hatreds. It is said that the Austro - Hungarian Empire is held together only by the life of the ruling sovereign. We annually receive many thousands from these warring nationalities of Austria-Hungary alone. The Czech hates the German; and the Hun and the Slovak will not work together. The Finn feels toward the Russian as — shall we say ? — the Irish regard the English. Even within the same nationality these hatreds are observable. The Pole from Austria bears an inherited hatred of the Pole from Russia. All hands dislike the Jew, the Syrian, and the Armenian.

Certain curious differences in attitude respecting labor organization are observable among these different nationalities. The English and Scotch take to team work like ducks to water. No sooner are they landed than their trade-union cards have given them a status among their fellows. This is partly due to natural aptitude, but more to long practice in the school of experience at home. The German workingmen take their places in the trade to which they were born, and speedily comprehend the novel problems of the new residence. The Swedes are said to be hard to organize, but become excellent members when once initiated. One branch of the clothing trade in Chicago, the “special order” business, has been entirely remodeled under their control. These Swedes have, in fact, compelled the Jewish, Polish, and Italian home finishers of clothing to come into an organization. The Bohemians also speedily become ardent unionists. They are reputed to be “ good stickers ” in a strike, and are ready to support the organization through thick and thin by prompt payment of dues. In this respect they contrast sharply with the Poles, who have well earned their racial opprobrium of strike breakers. Excellent workmen showing great endurance, and seemingly capable of great speed in piece work, in many parts of the country the Poles show an especial zeal for house owning. They are industrious, but are hated by their neighbors in industrial districts because they apparently have little sense of working-class solidarity. The long course of Polish history seems to have made them over-docile and submissive. Their priests appear to be partly responsible for this attitude of hostility to labor organizations. It was through them, for example, that the Chicago strike of 1896 was broken. This peculiarity of the Poles has operated greatly to increase their representation in the clothing trades of our great cities. An agricultural, outdoor people, they would not seem otherwise to be well suited to this sedentary occupation ; yet clothing contractors, discovering that the Poles will refuse to go out on strike with the Jews and Bohemians, at the behest of the labor leaders, have encouraged the Polish shops as a consequence. The only nationalities more hated by the trade-unionist are the political rough-scuff of Europe now coming in ever-increasing numbers, such as the Armenians, Greeks, and Syrians. These are all lumped as strike breakers in a class by themselves. And where employed in large establishments, as in a prominent Philadelphia house, they are so disliked as to make it necessary to segregate them in departments by themselves.

The French Canadians, who are flocking in increasing numbers into the industries of New England, show little liking or aptitude for trade-union organization and discipline. This is partly due to their low standard of living, making them content under conditions which would engender a strike among other peoples ; but I am inclined to the belief that the main reason for their backwardness lies in the transient character of their employment. They are birds of passage to a considerable extent. It is estimated that from fifty to seventy thousand come and go from Canada into New England for employment in the cotton mills alone. In this respect they resemble the South Italians, and the “ Blue-noses ” who come down from Nova Scotia to work in competition with American carpenters. Most of these people, especially the French Canadians, remain only so long as times are good. When the mills are shut down, as in the recent Lowell strike, they betake themselves to their farms again. The French Canadians seem to be even less useful unionists than the Portuguese, who are increasing so rapidly in the same part of the country. These people are reported to be trustworthy members of working organizations. Only when the French Canadians have been long enough in the cities to become thoroughly Americanized do they respond to the demands of the trade-union leaders. This peculiarity of the industrial population of New England will serve to explain, in part, a curious contrast between the labor situation in Great Britain and the United States. In England the cotton mill operatives have one of the oldest, and, next to the miners, the most powerful organization in the country. It is over a halfcentury old, and numbers 130,000 members. Practically all of the Lancashire cotton mill operatives of all grades are enrolled in it. This exemplifies the close relationship between labor organization and the development of the factory system. On the other hand, our New England cotton mills were the first, and have always been the most notable, examples of industrial organization on a large scale. Yet, strange to say, the New England cotton mill operatives have never succeeded in building up an organization of any great importance. This anomaly is doubtless due in part to the generally amicable relations which have subsisted between the employers and operatives; but it is also due in part to the large number of French Canadians who dominate the situation.

The position of the Jewish race in industry is a peculiarly interesting one. Their activities are almost entirely confined in this country to a few trades, such as tailoring, cigar-making, and the like. This is not due to any previous industrial training, for scarcely more than ten per cent of the Jewish immigrants seem to have been tailors, for example, at home ; while in New York, until recently, practically all of the clothing manufacture was in their hands. The race is, in fact, condemned to follow these sedentary trades because of its physical disabilities. By reason of their predominance in these few chosen occupations the condition of trade-unionism therein plainly reflects certain racial peculiarities of the Jews. Professor Commons, in his excellent report on Immigration, for the United States Industrial Commission, aptly described the situation in the assertion that even as a trade-unionist the Jewish conception of organization is that of a tradesman rather than a workman. The Jew will join a union only when there is a bargain directly in sight in the shape of material advancement. His natural timidity renders him otherwise unaggressive ; so that he is apt to be inconstant in his allegiance to the organization during flush times when wages are high and work is plenty. The Jewish unions have consequently in the past shown a rather abnormal fluctuation in their membership as compared with other organizations. Even in this period of trade-union activity, the clothing trades since October, 1902, are almost alone in showing considerable decline in their membership. Nevertheless, the Jews are rapidly learning, under the leadership of peculiarly able men ; and no more splendid service in uplifting the lot of the lowly can be found than that rendered by the warfare of the United Garment Workers of America against the sweat shops.

The future of the Jew in the labor field is bound to be interesting. Under novel American conditions he is beginning to invade many other trades. For example, I have in mind a very large shoe factory, which, by reason of the harassing exactions of the unions in a provincial trade centre, moved to one of the large cities as an experiment. The first feature to attract my attention in visiting this model plant— for such it is in its mechanical equipment — was the extraordinary number of Jews. Their presence was rendered peculiarly noticeable by the fact that the Jews were all men, working in rooms in direct competition with Irish-American and German girls and women. In other words, men were competing at women’s work. This, many of the more virile nationalities will not undertake. In this instance it appeared that a vast reservoir of cheap male labor had been tapped. These Jews were rapidly adapting themselves to the new trade of shoemaking. As in tailoring, these men developed an extraordinary speed in piece work. This, together with their low standard of living, enabled them to compete on even terms with the women operatives. These city Jews are as yet unorganized except in the clothing and cigar trades, but it is not without interest to note that they labor under an autocracy no less formidable than that of the walking delegate. In this particular instance I chanced to visit the establishment just after an enforced religious holiday of three or four days. The absence of the Jews seriously crippled the entire factory of several thousand hands, nor was there any argument or board of conciliation which could subdue the operatives or their rabbis. Industry had run afoul of a deep-seated religion ; and industry had to give place. A new element in the labor situation was apparent, threatening to prove no less menacing to the calculations of the employer than his previous interviews with strike committees.

The first step toward assimilation of the various nationalities in our country, where the trade is large enough, is by effecting the labor organization not only by occupations, but by nationalities within each trade. Where, as among the Jews in the clothing industry in New York, they are all of one race, the question is relatively simple. On the other hand, in Chicago, in the same business the situation is very different. The trade there is recruited from Swedes, Bohemians, and Jews in about equal proportions, the remaining quarter being composed mainly of Poles, with a scattering of Germans. New York has had for fifteen years a headquarters of unionism in the United Hebrew Trades. The only disturbing element now is the presence of the Italians; but in Chicago the contention is not only against the avarice and cupidity of the clothing contractors, but against the racial antipathies of the operatives among themselves. In Boston, the Italians in this industry, most of whom cannot speak English, are allowed to form by themselves a section of the local union. They meet in a separate room, debate matters of importance in their own tongue, and transmit their votes to the general assembly through an interpreter-representative.

Interesting examples of the organization of trade-unions by nationality are given by Professor Commons in the excellent report to which reference has already been made. The longshoremen on the Great Lakes have for some years had a powerful and efficient organization which has greatly improved their lot. This occupation is recruited from the Swedes, Italians, Finns, Slavs, and Portuguese. The difficulty of maintaining an organization has been partially overcome at Ashtabula, for example, by having a local union for each nationality. A central council composed of English-speaking delegates from the local unions is an essential part of the same scheme. A similar arrangement is made in many industries in Chicago, notably in the woodworking trades, where the Germans, Bohemians, and mixed English-speaking unions are maintained separately. The Chicago carpenters likewise have separate and distinct unions for the French, Bohemians, Swedes, Germans, and Jews. The hod - carriers, originally polyglot, have now reorganized along similar lines, with separate unions for Germans, Bohemians, Poles, and English - speaking peoples.

There are certain disadvantages, however, in this form of organization along racial lines. Take the United Mine Workers, for example. Their ethnic heterogeneity is probably greater than that of any other occupation, over ninety per cent of them, as a whole, being actually of foreign birth. Only about half of the miners can speak English at all. This English-speaking group is about half Irish, with the remainder constituted of Welsh, English, German, and Scotch. Most of these latter are native born, being one generation removed from the original immigrants. They are mainly in charge of the collieries as superintendents, bosses, engineers, pump runners, and skilled artisans. The other fifty per cent of the miners are about half Poles, leaving the remaining one quarter of the entire body of miners about evenly divided between Ruthenians, Letts, and Hungarians. A few Italians and some Bohemians are scattered through the fields. Of these, the Poles are increasing most rapidly since 1890. Formerly the United Mine Workers were organized as far as possible along racial lines, but the attempt has been abandoned for two reasons. In the first place, it affords no chance for the men to learn English ; and, secondly, the different nationalities are so geographically scattered that organization has to be effected on the basis of locality for purposes of convenience.

The racial heterogeneity of our American population affords a rare opportunity to the Irishman. It will never cease to be a surprise to me that the Irish, who have never been allowed to govern themselves, should show among all the races of the earth the greatest aptitude for the control of political organizations. One of the most peculiar features of our American labor problem is found in the leadership which the Irish have assumed in the movement. Thus, for example, while not more than one fourth of the United Mine Workers are of Irish extraction, it appears that more than three fourths of the officers and organizers are of this stock. Curious upon this point, I have taken some pains to examine the available data. Two years ago the United States Industrial Commission took testimony from nearly seven hundred witnesses from all parts of the United States. Seventy-nine of these were representatives of organized labor. Judging by their names, — an imperfect criterion, to be sure, — thirty of these seventy-nine, or about forty per cent, were of Irish blood, while only twenty-eight of the labor leaders bore English names. The remainder were Germans or Jews. The American Federation of Labor annually publishes a list of officers of its affiliated national unions. Twenty-nine out of ninety-six unions, or about thirty per cent, so listed a year ago were officered by men of Irish extraction. The proportion of Irish leadership varies greatly, of course, as between different trades and sections. It is but natural that Irish trades should be officered by men of the same nationality. One would naturally expect the bricklayers, stone masons, lathers, and plasterers, and the street and dock laborers, to elect Irish leaders. The Irishman dominates the building trades all over the country. Nineteen witnesses before the Industrial Commission represented organized labor in testimony concerning the Chicago strike of 1900. Of these more than half were Irish. In one hundred and twelve unions in the building trades in New York, about forty per cent of the officers were of the same nationality. Analyzing the returns from different parts of the country, the same high proportion is manifested. In Massachusetts twelve out of twenty city Central Labor Unions were officered by Irish ; and of twenty-two local unions listed for Connecticut fourteen were so officered.

The Irishman tends to monopolize the situation, not alone in the distinctively Irish trades and states, but peculiarly in proportion as the rank and file in the organizations are composed of the inert, non-Teutonic, unpolitical peoples of the earth. He will hold his fair proportion of the offices in a company of Scotch, English, Swedes, or Germans ; but his place is securely at the head of the line in a company comprising Bohemians, Slovaks, Huns, and Italians. The reasons are perfectly obvious : a ready command of English makes the Irishman their natural spokesman ; his native eloquence makes him a most effective organizer ; his strong sense of personal fealty makes him peculiarly faithful to the organization. Add to these qualities, tact, a generous good nature, and aggressive fighting qualities, and a rare combination is the result. They are precisely the qualities which have given the Emerald Isle so predominant an influence in the direction of our municipal political affairs. Kipling has put it well: —

One of the strangest features in the American situation, as contrasted with Great Britain, is revealed by this unique position of the Irish. They tend to dominate and direct the policy of our American unions ; while in the United Kingdom, they seem not only to have been backward, but rather unsuccessful, in the councils of the trade-unionists. The early English labor organizations were for a long time unable to assimilate the Irish either to their theory or to practice. According to the reliable chronicle of the Webbs, conditions of fraternal relationship amounting to tacit, if not formal, federation prevailed between the British and the Scotch trade-unions ; but, after years of vain striving to incorporate the Irish successfully, the attempt was in some cases abandoned, as in 1840 by the Friendly Society of Operative Stone Masons. The records of years are filled with criticisms of the Irish trade-unionists from the British point of view. Even in 1892, according to the Webbs, no less than four principal Irish branches of the Amalgamated Society of Tailors suffered rebuke for their shortcomings. One of the difficulties in another case was well put: “ Holding that there was only one element of danger, and it was the putting of too many Irishmen together.” We need not examine as to details. The failings were those which we all recognize as peculiar to the Irish as a people. Far be it from me to underestimate the fine qualities and the magnificent contributions of the Irish-Americans to our national well-being; but with their virtues certain shortcomings are to be found, which are in many cases coincidentally attributable to our labor organizations. Not least among these are the qualities, admirable in certain predicaments, of aggressive combativeness, of blind and enthusiastic loyalty, too often coupled with an inability to husband resources against a time of need. Could the leaders of our trade-unions guard against every one of these faults, all human, but also — may we say so ? — peculiarly Irish, the proportion of successes to failures in the labor movement might be considerably increased. Our labor leaders are too seldom tactful and compromising, and their followers are not quick enough to sink their personal loyalty in a judicial habit of mind. And the third fault which we have mentioned is a peculiarly flagrant one, namely, the financial recklessness of the organizations in time of stress. In this respect a powerful contrast with the policy of their British contemporaries is noticeable. This may form the topic of further discussion in another place.

What is the attitude of the native American, or, shall we say, of the Americanized mind toward labor organization ? Assuming that it is a question of individualism, or of personal initiative and independence of action, versus collectivism, or subordination to a class will, this question would appear to be answerable by psychological analysis. One would naturally expect the free-born, libertyloving American to rebel against the socalled tyranny of an organization, especially when the policy of that organization is dictated by a foreign-born majority. Such analysis by an appeal to mere psychology is, however, dangerous to an extreme in industrial questions. The factors are too complex. Action is too often a compromise between conflicting impulses,— the love of individual freedom as against the desire for material advancement. Too often, also, the question is merely a quantitative one, turning upon the degree of individual subordination within or without the organization. Without organization the isolated workman may be entirely at the mercy of the employer ; within it he may still be as clay, but the potter, at least, is one of his own class, while he himself has a turn at the wheel. The only satisfactory answer as to the native American attitude is to be found in the recorded facts of industrial life. It is difficult to obtain statistics, and not always easy to believe them when once they have been found. Only one investigation have I been able to find, and that from a predominantly agricultural state, — a fact rendering the returns inadequate and somewhat inconclusive. The Minnesota Bureau of Labor made an especial attempt some years ago to discover whether the trade-unions in that state were controlled by the foreign born, and also as to the attitude of the unions toward American boys seeking admission. Returns were received from 1985 workmen. Of this number 59 per cent were born in the United States, and 41 per cent were of foreign birth. In the general population of Minnesota, on the other hand, only 38 per cent of the males of voting age were native born. This was taken at the time to mean that native-born workmen were one and a half times as frequent in the trade-unions as in the adult male population at large. The phenomenal growth of unionism in recent years in the United States would seem also to support this contention, for such progress could never have obtained without successful appeal to the great body of artisans of American birth.

On the other hand, it seems clear that the native American, as well as the foreigner, must be educated to appreciate trade-union standards. He must indeed, as the advocates of organization affirm, often be forced into the organization in the first instance, in order to test its benefits. Whether as a free-born American he will thereafter remain an ardent tradeunionist must depend upon the judgment which he may form after joining. Dr. Bushée, in his excellent monograph on Ethnic Factors of the Population of Boston, observes that rural Americans, particularly those from northern New England, do not appear to favor the labor organizations. Another interesting instance tending to confirm this view as to the attitude of the rural American is offered by the experience of the United Mine Workers. This is described in the excellent report on Immigration to which reference has already been made. For seven years after the organization of the United Mine Workers in 1886 they struggled against the competition of the unorganized miners in southern Illinois. Even at the present time they are seeking ineffectually to enroll the native-born West Virginia miners in their organization. In Illinois, however, the case is more interesting, because the standard of living is considerably higher than in West Virginia. In 1899, in the mine districts of northern Illinois there were as few as 11 per cent of American-born miners, while in the southern part of the same state 80 per cent of the miners were pure-blooded Americans. These latter were in the main farm laborers, who resorted to the mines as a source of ready cash. These Americans were often willing to work for less than half the price per ton paid in northern Illinois. This they could do because of the greater thickness of the veins and their comparative ease of working. The competition of such wages was, however, none the less severe. Finally, these American miners were persuaded to come into the organization by the foreign-born miners in the northern part of the state. We need not deal with the relative adjustment of wages effected, other than to say that it aimed to equalize not the earnings, but the competitive conditions. The important point for us to note is that the American-born miners were induced to demand higher wages, in order that their foreign-born competitors in another district might obtain a living wage. Organization aimed to benefit both parties, but the initiative came surely, not from the American, but from the foreign born.

The significant query for the student of American conditions is as to the future attitude of these Americans. Will they continue to be docile in the hands of their old leaders ? Or will they here, as elsewhere, assume a more positive rôle in directing the policy of the organization ? The future of American trade-unionism will depend largely upon the attitude thus assumed, not alone by these Americanborn miners, but by workmen of American parentage and tradition in every line of industry throughout the country.

Whatever our judgment as to the legality or expediency of the industrial policy of our American unions, no student of contemporary conditions can deny that they are a mighty factor in effecting the assimilation of our foreignborn population. Schooling is primarily of importance, of course, but many of our immigrants come here as adults. Education can affect only the second generation. The churches, particularly the Catholic hierarchy, may do much. Protestants seem to have little influence in the industrial centres. On the other hand, the newspapers, at least such as the masses see and read, and the ballot under present conditions in American cities, have no uplifting or educative power at all. The great source of intellectual inspiration to a large percentage of our inchoate Americans, in the industrial classes, remains in the trade-union. It is a vast power for good or evil, according as its affairs are administered. It cannot fail to teach the English language. That in itself is much. Its benefit system, as among the cigar-makers and printers, may inculcate thrift. Its journals, the best of them, give a general knowledge of trade conditions, impossible to the isolated workman. Its democratic constitutions and its assemblies and conventions partake of the primitive character of the Anglo-Saxon folkmoot, so much lauded by Freeman, the historian, as a factor in English political education and constitutional development. Not the next gubernatorial or presidential candidate ; not the expansion of the currency, nor the reform of the general staff of the army ; not free-trade or protection, or anti-imperialism, is the real living thing of interest to the trade-union workman. His thoughts, interests, and hopes are centred in the polities of his organization. It is the forum and arena of his social and industrial world. Are the positive educational advantages of trade-unionism, in the solution of our pressing racial problem, more than offset by the evils which attach to the labor movement in its present status? If the raw immigrant finds himself ruled by leaders of the Sam Parks type ! If he observes that the end in view is not to increase the efficiency of the workman, but rather to enforce rules for the restriction of output, in order to “ do ” the employer ! If the opportunity for his children to fit themselves to become honest artisans is closed by absurd restrictions concerning apprentices ! If the policy of “ graft ” is kept to the fore by secret agreements with capitalistic monopolies to down their rivals, and jointly fleece the consumer, as has recently been revealed in the case of the New York Realty and Construction Company, the Chicago Coal Dealers’ Association, and others, of a like kind, which might be named in our own Massachusetts ! If recruits are to be gained and held, not by the promise of tangible benefits, social and financial, but by the methods of the foot-pad and the anarchist! If these be the lessons taught by the Unions to their neophytes, the future is dark indeed. The friend of Unionism can only hope that these shadows are cast by passing clouds, and that a brighter day for honest labor effort will ensue.

William Z. Ripley.