The trade-unions of the United States are usually willing to resort to conciliation in the adjustment of differences as they arise, such conciliation to consist of committees represent ing each side and with equal power. They are usually in favor of arbitration when all means of conciliation have been exhausted, but they are opposed to compulsory arbitration, so called, and usually to compulsory investigation of the conditions attending a controversy. They do not object to although they have little faith in State boards of arbitration or other perfunctory legislative methods of adjusting difficulties. They are in favor of strict legis lation relative to blacklisting. They claim that the blacklist is a rank injustice, and that wher ever practised there is a degradation ofthe man blacklisted, and an annoying and irritat ing influence upon those who are not; that it is a menace to the well-being of labor everywhere. On the other hand, they do not hesitate to use the boycott in enforcing their demands, on the ground that it is a legitimate war measure against men who are considered as strike-break ers and thus traitors to the cause of labor. They insist that during periods of labor strikes or other controversies no man or body of men should be enjoined to prevent the doing of something which, if done, would be punishable under the criminal code; that they should not be debarred by injunction from picketing or patrolling, so-called, or from representing to non-union men that they had better not enter the service of the employer involved in a strike. They recognize their duty to avoid physical violence or intimidation, but claim that if some indulge in this, only those men engaged should be dealt with under the law. They insist that if they violate the rn law, and are thus amenable to punishment under it, they should not be subject to fines and imprisonment for contempt of court under an injunction; and they claim that all petitions for injunction should first be heard, either by a jury or other wise, before they are subject to the process of contempt. They are not in favor of socialistic
revolution; but that under the present indus trial system their affairs can be adjusted, their claims fairly adjusted and their condition made reasonably satisfactory. They are, as a rule, in favor of the extension of State control in cer tain directions, but they are not social demo crats as distinguished from State Socialists. They claim that the chief force which is ex tending State-socialistic doctrines comes from employers, through trusts and combinations and the aggregation of capital. They are, therefore, generally in favor of some regula tion of fortunes and incomes, and the heavy taxation of incomes on some progressive prin ciple. For statistics of labor troubles see STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS.
For a general consideration of trades unionism and labor problems, consult Tolstoi, 'The Slavery of Our Times) (1900) ; Ghent, William James, 'Our Benevolent Feu dalism> (1902) ; Brooks, John Graham, 'The Social Unrest' (1903) ; Mitchell, 'Organized Labor' (1903); Chapman, 'Work and (1904); Waring, The Law and Gospel of Labor> (1907) ; Smith, Samuel G., 'The In dustrial Conflict> (1907) ; Gompers, Samuel, 'Labor in Europe and America> (1910) ; Carl ton, Frank Tracy, 'The History and Problems of Organized Labor' (1911) ; Rogers, 'Six Centuries of Work and Wages' (1913); Friden, 'New Unionism' (1913) ; Watney and Little, 'Industrial Warfare' (1913) ; Hobhouse, 'The Labor Movement) (1917), and publications of the American Association for Labor Legisla tion. Also (American Labor Year (New York ann.), which contains many facts not often seen in the newspapers.