The widow says to the mine owner: "Here he is, dead--killed
working for you. Where were you when he was killed? Driving in
your carriage, enjoying the difference between his EARNINGS
and his PAY. Was one dollar and thirty cents per day too much
to pay him for this risk? Was it too much to let him save
something for us--who now have nothing? Is there nothing to
arbitrate when the man who risks his life and gets nothing asks
arbitration of the man who risks nothing and gets all? ----
There are many men in America--honest and sincere--who believe
that strikers are nearly always right, that failure of a strike
is a calamity.
Other men, less numerous, but also honest and sincere, consider
strikes an evil. They believe that labor unionism threatens
"capital," threatens national energy, and our national industrial
supremacy. ----
Let us endeavor to take a clear view of the strike question, and
to discuss--as free from bias as may be possible--some of the
main viewpoints of those interested.
We may, at the start, accept two statements as sound:
First. The employer wants as much money as he can possibly get.
Second. The workman wants as much money as HE can possibly get.
It is impossible for both or for either to win absolutely. The
success of one must leave the other penniless.
Let us look at the matter of a coal strike only, for simplicity's
sake.
In a coal mine you have three factors:
First. The COAL given to men--presumably for the use of mankind
in general--by Divine Providence.
Second. The WORKMEN who dig the coal, haul it, screen it, etc.
Third. The OWNER, who through money, or intelligence, or both,
gets control of mines and works them for his profit.
The mine owner resents the suggestion that he and his men are
partners.
Ought he to resent that suggestion? We think not.
Miners without any capitalist could certainly get coal out of the
ground.
The capitalist without miners could not possibly get coal out of
the ground.