12. Abolition of physical examination of applicants for employment.

Some of these demands were merely camouflage, inserted to give the public an idea of imaginary wrongs against the steel worker. The steel companies generally have been trying for years to institute a real eight-hour day and have made the eight-hour day the basis of wage payments. Practically all steel workers work only six days a week. The twenty-four-hour shift is borne by a very small percentage of the workers and by these only on widely separated occasions. The Corporation and its competitors as well, following its lead, have repeatedly advanced wages without solicitation from the men, and the claim that the wage they pay is insufficient to permit American standards of living has not borne investigation. But the acceptance of such demands as the recognition of the right of collective bargaining, coupled with the check-off system of collecting union dues and assessments, would have handed over the companies, bound hand and foot, to the unions. The application of the seniority principle in maintaining, reducing, and increasing working forces would have obviously made for inefficiency and destroyed the incentive to effort and good work on the part of the men. Finally, physical examination of applicants for employment in an industry where sound health, active muscles, and keen eye-sight are necessary not only for the safety of the worker himself, but for that of his associates, was a precaution which the companies could not dispense with in fairness either to themselves or to their employees. It is hardly necessary to discuss these demands in further detail. All the circumstances indicated that they were merely a gauge of battle, hardly intended for discussion. These demands were announced by E. J. Evans, who in an interview with press representatives was quoted as declaring that either they would be accepted in toto by the Corporation or the steel workers would strike within a week, shutting down the entire industry. This was about the middle of August, 1919. Nothing actually happened, however, until the 26th of that month. On that day a committee of union leaders composed of the five gentlemen whom Gompers had previously asked Judge Gary to meet arrived in New York City and called at the offices of the Corporation seeking an interview, only to meet with another polite refusal. Returning to their hotel, the members of the committee thereupon sent the head of the Steel Corporation a letter stating that they represented a “vast majority” of the workers of the steel industry, and on this basis for the third time asked a hearing. To this letter Judge Gary sent the following reply: August 27th, 1919. Messrs John Fitzpatrick, David J. Davis, William Hannon, William Z. Foster, Edward J. Evans, Committee. Gentlemen: Receipt of your communication of August 26th is acknowledged. We do not think you are authorized to represent the sentiment of a majority of the employees of the United States Steel Corporation and its subsidiaries. We express no opinion concerning any other members of the iron and steel industry. As heretofore publicly stated and repeated, our Corporation and subsidiaries, although they do not combat labor unions as such, decline to discuss business with them. The Corporation and subsidiaries are opposed to the “closed shop.” They stand for the “open shop,” which permits one to engage in any line of employment whether one does or does not belong to a labor union. This best promotes the welfare of both employees and employers. In view of the well-known attitude as above expressed, the officers of the Corporation respectfully decline to discuss with you, as representatives of a labor union, any matters relating to employees. In doing so, no personal discourtesy is intended. In all decisions and acts of the Corporation and subsidiaries pertaining to employees and employment their interests are of highest importance. In wage rates, living and working conditions, conservation of life and health, care and comfort in times of sickness or old age, and providing facilities for the general welfare and happiness of employees and their families, the Corporation and subsidiaries have endeavored to occupy a leading and advanced position amongst employers. It will be the object of the Corporation and subsidiaries to give such consideration to employees as to show them their loyal and efficient service in the past is appreciated, and that they may expect in the future fair treatment. Respectfully yours, E. H. GARY, Chairman. Upon receipt of this letter the members of the Union Committee returned to the steel centres and set on foot preparations for the strike. Shortly before this the President of the United States had announced his intention of calling an “Industrial Conference” at Washington, beginning October 6th, to consider the grave industrial questions facing the country in the wake of the World War, and particularly the relations between capital and labor. It was obvious that one of the President’s reasons for calling the conference at this time was to forestall the threatened steel strike, which had been brewing for months, and to bring about, if possible, harmonious relations between the steel companies and organized labor. But the President did not stop there. He used the power of his great office in every legitimate way to ward off the blow that was threatening the country’s industry. Bernard M. Baruch, former head of the War Industries Board, was commissioned by Mr. Wilson to endeavor to persuade Judge Gary to confer with the unions, but Mr. Baruch was unable to change the attitude of the head of the Corporation, who saw plainly what few others realized at the time, that the issue was not merely that of a strike, but that the very foundations of the country’s liberty were threatened, and that it was no time for compromising. On the 10th of September, when all hope of averting the strike seemed gone, the President made still another effort and dispatched a telegram to Samuel Gompers, urging that action be postponed until after the Industrial Conference. At this time the situation stood thus: The organized portion of the steel trade had voted to strike, leaving details and the decision as to the date in the hands of the committee already named. Mr. Gompers referred the President’s letter to the committee, which had full power to comply with the request of the nation’s Chief Executive, but the committee declared that postponement was out of the question. The strike date was set for September 22nd, on which day, the union leaders confidently asserted, there would not be a wheel turning or fire burning in any steel mill west of the Alleghanies. Thus was the fatal die cast. From that time both sides girded up their loins and prepared for the conflict. The steel companies expressed quiet confidence in the outcome, while their opponents loudly boasted of certain victory. The officials of the Steel Corporation and of the other companies threatened must have known that a considerable element among their foreign-born employees had been led astray by the radical preachings of labor organizers, but they believed that the best element among their men was satisfied with conditions and would continue at work. And this confidence proved justified. The steel trade, outside the Corporation, had been watching the issue with some misgiving, but as it became plain that Judge Gary was standing firm in his attitude, general satisfaction was evident and confidence in the final result increased. For the trade was not unduly worried as to the outcome in the event of a showdown. The opinion generally expressed was that the issue must be forced sooner or later, and that it was probably best to have it settled as speedily as possible by a decisive conflict. But in many quarters apprehension was felt that the Judge, realizing his immense responsibility, might allow himself to be persuaded into a compromise. However, Judge Gary was firm, as those who knew him best were sure he would be. For there was a matter of principle involved, the right of the independent worker to work when, where, and with whom he desired and could obtain employment. And for Judge Gary, compromise on questions of principle was out of the question. As this became realized, all misgivings vanished. Judge Gary’s already recognized position as leader of the steel industry was made more secure than ever before. The trade left the issue in his hands, assured as to the result, and this assurance was not abused. It is not too much to say that the entire country waited with bated breath for the events of September 22nd. It was recognized that this was not a mere skirmish between employer and employee, but a gigantic struggle between capital and radical labor. As time wore on it developed that there was another and stronger party to the conflict, the vast mass of unorganized workers; and this threw its strength on the side of the Corporation, dooming the hopes of the strike leaders. At first the strike organizers unquestionably struck hard and with considerable result. Between the conflicting claims from all sides it is impossible to say just how many men went out in the steel mills, voluntarily or through intimidation, but it is certain that at many centres, such as Youngstown, where the Corporation and some of the larger independents--Republic Iron & Steel, Youngstown Sheet & Tube and Brier Hill Steel--have big plants, operations were practically suspended in toto. At Gary, the Corporation’s largest plant, operations were reduced to a low point, and at many other centres, the results, at the outset, were apparently in favor of the strikers. But Pittsburgh, the world’s steel centre, was almost unaffected. At Homestead, Braddock, Duquesne, and other big Corporation plants the workers unequivocally proved their loyalty by sticking to their jobs, and the strike leaders failed utterly to make headway. Day after day the smoke ascending in volumes from the stacks of these plants gave assurance that the steel companies were far from crippled and sent to the union chiefs the message of certain defeat unless they could succeed in quenching these furnaces. Although, ostensibly, the strike was directed against the Steel Corporation and no attempt had been made to negotiate with the heads of other concerns, all steel companies west of the Alleghanies were affected by the walk-out as much as or more than was the Corporation. So far as the big company was concerned the greatest number of men out when the strike was at its worst, or within a few days of its inception, was 28 per cent. of its total of employees or 40 per cent. of its manufacturing force. These were the figures given by Judge Gary in his testimony at Washington in October, and undoubtedly they are as nearly accurate as possible. And of the men out there is no question that many were kept from work not by persuasion but by intimidation, the strikers having used threats freely to keep the loyal workers from the mills. Such tactics are not at all a new thing in similar conditions. Steel workers who sought to report for duty were sent letters threatening them with injury or death to themselves or families. In some cases the threats were sent to the men’s wives or other dependents where their effect was perhaps greater. The strike had not been in progress two days before its genesis became patent. The American public soon realized that probably 98 per cent. of the strikers were alien-born and that the native worker, with few exceptions, and large numbers of naturalized foreigners, were sticking to the steel companies. This, together with the inflammatory utterances of the strikers themselves, convinced the public that the strike was not what it claimed to be, an effort to get fair wages and improved living conditions for the workers--the American workers who remained at their posts insisted that they already had these and the evidence adduced by the steel companies verified the statement--but an attempt to deliver the steel mills and factories into the hands of the radical foreign element among our industrial workers. It was, in a word, but the first step toward the seizure of the means of production by labor. And the public, with the example of Russia before it, could not and did not sympathize with the strikers. With some notable exceptions the strike was a bloodless one. This was due principally to the prompt action taken by the local public authorities at the various points affected to prevent trouble and to the refusal of the steel companies generally to attempt to bring in strike breakers. Because of this passive attitude on the part of the employers the strikers were robbed of the opportunity to make sufficient trouble to force intervention by the Government. In no previous conflict between capital and labor, it is likely, has the public had as excellent an opportunity of judging the rights and wrongs as in the steel strike. One day after the struggle eventually began the Senate of the United States passed a resolution instructing the Committee on Education and Labor to investigate the strike and report on its causes. The committee conducted public hearings in Washington where Judge Gary and a number of loyal workers were heard on the side of the Steel Corporation, while Foster, Fitzpatrick, Gompers, and other union leaders had equal opportunity, which they availed themselves of, to present their case. The committee also visited the affected districts to secure first-hand evidence on conditions there. In an essentially fair and complete report, submitted to the Senate on November 8, 1919, the committee reviewed the claims of the strike leaders and of the Corporation. While criticizing the steel companies on the question of too long work hours and suggesting that the six-day week could be extended to include all workers the report characterized some of the statements of the strike organizers as false and dismissed their claim of pauper wages, expressing the opinion that the employees of the steel industry were fairly well satisfied with wages received and that the question of wages was not persuasive at all in the consideration of a strike. The committee, in fact, in its own language found little to complain of as to conditions in general outside of long work hours. On the other hand, the committee reported the underlying cause of the strike to be “the determination of the American Federation of Labor to organize the steel workers in opposition to the known and long-established policy of the industry against organization,” and “the seizing upon this cause by some radicals who are seeking to elevate themselves to power in the A. F. of L.” On this point the committee further found that “behind this strike there is massed a considerable element of I. W. W.’s anarchists, revolutionists, and Russian Soviets,” and expressed the opinion that the American Federation of Labor had “made a serious mistake by permitting the leadership of this strike movement to pass into the hands of some who have entertained most radical and dangerous doctrines.” Still further pursuing this point the committee reported: “There may be, in view of the radical utterances and actions of certain strike leaders, some warrant for the belief that the strike in the steel industry is a part of a general scheme and purpose on the part of radical leaders to bring about a general industrial revolution. The committee, however, do not go to that extent because they feel there were some real grievances.” This, of course, is just what steel men and the greater part of the public believe. While this report served to prove that the conclusions arrived at long before by the great mass of the public were correct the strike was dying out before it was presented. In fact, the majority of the steel mills of the country had resumed nearly full operations by early in November. The strike gradually lessened in importance from the end of September and, although it was not actually called off by its leaders until nearly the middle of January it was to all practical purposes dead long before the end of the year. The story of the Industrial Conference called by President Wilson in an effort to bring together the conflicting forces of capital and organized labor and to work out a new industrial scheme rightly belongs with that of the steel strike. The decision of the President was unquestionably due, to some extent at least, to the imminence of the strike, his plans for the Conference having been announced at the time when the union organizers were attempting to get recognition from Judge Gary. While the conference was not called, ostensibly, to deal with the particular situation it is obvious that Mr. Wilson, realizing what a danger the strike would be to the country’s prosperity if it occurred, sought to avert it and at the same time to reduce to a minimum the danger of other conflicts between the two great opposing industrial forces. That he had the steel situation in mind was further indicated by his request to the labor leaders to postpone action until after the Conference--a request that was refused. To the Industrial Conference the President invited a number of men supposed to represent the three great groups concerned in industrial disputes--labor, capital, and the public. The country’s workers were represented officially only by the leaders of organized labor, Samuel Gompers, Matthew Woll, Frank Morrison and other prominent members of the American Federation, with some representatives of the railroad unions. The interests of capital were in the hands of the so-called employers’ group which included representatives of various commercial bodies, of the railroads, and of farmers’ organizations. The so-called public group also included a number of employers, among whom were Judge Gary; the late Henry B. Endicott, the Massachusetts shoe manufacturer who had gained a reputation for the interest he took in the welfare of his employees, and others; social workers and writers such as Ida M. Tarbell and Gertrude Barnum; two prominent Socialists, Charles Edmund Russell and John Spargo. To these were added Dr. Charles W. Eliot, educator; Thomas M. Chadbourne and Gaven McNab, lawyers; Bernard M. Baruch, erstwhile stockmarket operator but lately head of the War Industries Board, and several others. Sincere as was the desire of the President to create amicable relations between capital and labour and equally sincere as was the attitude of the majority of the participants to the Conference to reach an understanding that would reduce to a minimum the danger of industrial disputes and establish a satisfactory method of settling them when they did arise, it was obvious from the outset that the Conference would be abortive; that a panacea for industrial ills would not be discovered by it. It was unfortunate that illness prevented Mr. Wilson from taking personal charge of the proceedings. The influence of his high office might have prevented the disagreements that occurred and held the Conference together long enough to enable the participants to arrive at some basic points of agreement. But this was not to be. It was also unfortunate that the Conference took place during a big industrial dispute, probably the greatest the country had ever faced. For although it was obviously convened to deal with industrial problems in the abstract rather than in the concrete, Samuel Gompers and the other union representatives at the very beginning demanded that one of its first actions should be the settlement of the steel strike. This might readily have been foreseen. The labor leaders undoubtedly, by the time the Conference came together on October 6th, realized that in their conflict with the Steel Corporation and the steel companies generally they had engaged in a losing fight. At the very time strikers in large numbers were going back to the mills and the operations of the steel companies were steadily increasing. The continuation of the fight meant a total loss to the unions while arbitration would have permitted them to gain some of their points, or at least to yield gracefully and save their faces. They saw, or thought they saw, in the Industrial Conference, a means to force the Corporation to accept arbitration. Defeated in their efforts to end the steel strike without sacrificing prestige among their followers with the assistance of the Industrial Conference, the labor leaders then made another demand--that the Conference, before proceeding further, recognize the principle of collective bargaining and the right of workers to be represented by men of their own choosing. This demand, fair as it seemed on the face of it, was so presented as to make it clear that by “collective bargaining” was meant bargaining through unions, and that by “representatives of their own choosing” was meant union leaders selected not by the men but by unions, and the employers insisted that, while the right of collective bargaining could not be gainsaid, the unions must recognize the exercise of this right through shop committees, a form of collective bargaining which has proved successful in many instances but to which unionism is firmly and irrevocably opposed. [Illustration: Coils of Red Hot Wire] And it was upon this rock that the Conference eventually split after several weeks of argument, notwithstanding the strenuous efforts of Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior, who acted as chairman. In justice to the unions, however, it must be said that, on the last day, before organized labor withdrew from the Conference, giving it its death-blow, Mr. Gompers presented a final resolution for the recognition of the right of collective bargaining without restriction. Had the employers’ group accepted this resolution or had the union representatives given their opponents time to consider it, as the latter with good reason asked, even this difficulty might have been overcome. [Illustration: Annealing Wire] And here it might be pointed out that John Spargo, Socialist and writer, offered a compromise resolution that was intended to satisfy all parties to the controversy. But unfortunately this resolution was presented while the Conference was in the death throes and never received the consideration it deserved. Mr. Spargo’s resolution read: “That the Conference proceed to develop and formulate a general programme which will clearly define and establish the right of organization and collective bargaining and furnish the basis for a constructive policy to direct the relations of employers and employees during the days immediately ahead.” Both sides, capital and labor, had agreed to collective bargaining in theory. They could not agree on its definition. Mr. Spargo’s suggestion that the Conference “define” the phrase, it seems to the writer who was present through the entire proceedings, provided a basis on which both sides might have come together with some hope of establishing an amicable basis of agreement--if such a basis were humanly possible. It was the only resolution offered that at all tended to harmonize conflicting ideas. While the labor leaders were battling for the immediate settlement of the steel strike by the Industrial Conference, Judge Gary, who it will be remembered was a member of the “public” group, read a prepared statement giving the Steel Corporation’s attitude on this point. Judge Gary said: I desire to make a brief statement in relation to the question under discussion as well as others submitted to this Conference. Further explanation of any vote I may register will probably be unnecessary. Like other members of the Conference, I recognize that the public interest must always be considered as of the first importance; that all private interests must be subordinated. I am heartily in accord with the desire of the President firmly to establish proper and satisfactory relations between all groups of citizens connected with industry, including of course what has been designated as capital and labor. I believe in conciliation, coöperation, and arbitration whenever practicable without sacrificing principle. I am of the fixed opinion that the pending strike against the steel industry of this country should not be arbitrated or compromised, nor any action taken by the Conference which bears upon that subject. Also that there should be maintained in actual practice, without interruption, the open shop as I understand it--namely, that every man, whether he does or does not belong to a labor union, shall have the opportunity to engage in any line of legitimate employment on terms and conditions agreed upon between employee and employer. I am opposed to a policy or practice which unnecessarily limits production, increases costs, deprives the workman from receiving the highest wage rates resulting from voluntary and reasonable effort, hinders promotion or advancement in accordance with merit, or otherwise interferes with the freedom of individual action. As unorganized labor, which embraces the vast majority of working people, has no special representation in this Conference, I deem it appropriate to say that all labor should receive due consideration, and that it is the obligation and ought to be the pleasure of employers at all times and in every respect to treat justly and liberally all employees, whether unorganized or organized. Thus, without accomplishing a single constructive result, the Industrial Conference ended. Labor, or rather the union heads, had endeavored to subvert it to promote their own ends and, failing in this effort, withdrew dramatically. President Wilson did not abandon his hope of formulating a basis for the settlement of industrial disputes, however. He immediately called a new conference consisting of only one group, supposed to represent the public, which did not include any of the participants to the former conference, and this met and drew up a rather innocuous report. But as a factor in the steel strike the second conference might never have occurred and need not be considered here. The strike dragged more or less wearily throughout the fall of 1919 and the early winter. Long before the end of the year it ceased to be an important factor in mill operations, and its final official calling off on January 10, 1920, was merely a formal procedure. Long before that date the whole country had realized that the labor leaders had over-played their hands and had met their Waterloo. To all intents and purposes the steel strike was ended before the middle of November. As it proved, the method adopted by Judge Gary in fighting the strike was the best. It consisted principally of permitting the public every opportunity of judging all aspects of the case and of standing pat on the fairness of the steel companies in dealing with their men. Had the Judge yielded one iota to the demands of the labor organizers this would but have convinced the radical element in labor that they held the whip hand over capital and would have encouraged them to further excessive demands. Had the Judge, on the other hand, attempted to fight the strike by meeting violence with violence this would have alienated public sympathy. And in the final analysis public opinion is the most important factor in settling industrial disputes. As an aftermath to the strike came the “investigation” by the Interchurch World Movement, an organization at the head of which were a number of bishops and other churchmen. A committee of this organization visited Pittsburgh and other points and presented a statement, but it was of a character entirely biassed against the Corporation, its members, in their investigation, having apparently given heed only to the arguments of Messrs. Foster and Fitzpatrick. In the report of this committee stress is laid on the long working hours of the man in the steel mill, ignoring the fact that steel companies generally have made great effort to reduce the average of daily work and that only a comparatively small percentage of the men work twelve hours. Further, the committee attacked the Corporation on the question of wages which it declared to be below the sum required for American standards of living, its statements failing to harmonize with the findings of other obviously unprejudiced investigators including the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, which found otherwise. In standing on a just basis and refusing to follow the easier way of compromise the Steel Corporation performed a service not to itself or to the steel trade alone. It performed a service to the whole country and even to the world. It gave the first decided check to the growing strength of radicalism which was then threatening to overwhelm America and prevented a situation which would have thrown the country into the same condition that has for some time prevailed in Russia. The evil of unchecked growth of unionism is illustrated by what is happening in England at the present writing. The Corporation saved this country from similar evils. By its stand it established the right of every worker to earn a livelihood whether or not he belongs to a union.