one hand it was taken without the sanction of the general management of the factory, which should at least have been consulted. On the other hand, it was taken without the previous knowledge or consent of the workers' representative, and as such constituted a violation of the agreement. If the change had been in itself a legitimate one, as claimed by the examiner, it could have been effected without friction by way of the regular procedure of conference and joint authorization.

CHAPTER XI

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE

If we look back at the condition of the workers in the Chicago clothing shops in the year 1910, we find in the larger establishments that the power of discipline and discharge was lodged in the hands of foremen. As these men had generally risen from the ranks and felt keenly their power over the rest of the workers in the shop, it was not strange that abuses of authority should be frequent and tyrannical treatment common. Not only were workers laid off or discharged by the foreman without a chance to be heard in their own defense, but that petty autocrat was wont to impose fines and deductions, to order overtime work, to cut piece rates, or even to lock out his workers, with a free hand. Foremen were usually selected for other qualities than those of personal refinement or respect for workers' rights. Many of them were typical bullies and of low moral sensibilities. With women and young girls constituting at least half of the people under them, some of these foremen did not scruple to subject the more defenseless workers to brutal insults and indignities. They were able to do so with impunity, for at that time the workers had no effective redress against mistreatment at the hands of their "superiors." It was abuses of this sort that in their cumulative effect precipitated the great strike of 1910-11, thereby compelling consideration of the fundamental defects of the autocratic régime in the clothing industry. One of the few provisions embodied in the resulting peace pact between the firm of Hart, Schaffner and Marx and its employes limited the company's right of discharge from that time forth by the obligation not to discriminate against members of the union -even where these had taken an active part in the conduct of the strike.

That obligation, however, was merely voluntary on the

part of the company and was predicated upon its good-will alone. There was no power, as yet, on the side of the union to compel its observance in practice. As a matter of fact, the company maintained through its employment department a system of classification of all its employes, grading them as A, B and C, according to their previous record in its shop and re-employing them only in this order of preference. Thus the firm practiced an indirect, though none the less effective, discrimination against those of its former employes who had for whatever reason earned the classification of C. If, then, a worker was refused re-employment or was reemployed and subsequently discharged by the firm, he might, theoretically, appeal his case to the newly-established Board of Arbitration. But the burden of proof of discrimination on account of union membership was upon himself, not upon the employer.

A survey of the growth of union control in this field, as it is recorded in the decisions of the Trade Board, and the Board of Arbitration, shows three main lines of progress. In the first place, extensive inroads have been made upon the employer's traditional power of discipline and discharge, a considerable share of this power having come to be lodged in the impartial machinery. From this transfer of power there have followed two other developments of importance: (a) the adaptation of disciplinary measures, both as to kind and degree, to the objective needs of the situation; that is to say, the elimination of arbitrary and of drastic penalties against workers. And (b) the coming of foremen and other representatives of management-and incidentally also of the union in the shop-under the sway of law and discipline as administered by the Trade Board.

In the second place, there has been a widening of the circle of rights for the worker and a growing up of guaranties protecting him in the exercise of these rights without fear of discipline or discharge. From being virtually a rightless wage-servant" whose tenure of his job was dependent on the pleasure of the employer and whose liberty of action on the job was equally precarious, the worker has come to oc

66

cupy something of the status of a citizen in the industry, with a voice in its management wherever his own interests are involved, and with definitely recognized rights over against the employer.

The third line of advance toward control has been in the direction of increasing participation by the union in the maintenance of shop discipline and morale. Once feared and fought by the employers as the great menace to discipline in the old autocratic sense, the union has gradually become one of the most potent factors, if not the mainstay, of law and order in the shop. It has become an indispensable ally of management in the task of securing the willing co-operation of the workers in the industry, that has superseded the enforced co-operation under the old régime of fear and hate. And along with its enlarging responsibilities for the discipline of the shop, the union has acquired corresponding rights and privileges, that have, in turn, contributed to its growth both in numbers and in solidarity, and made of it a powerful force working toward self-government in the industry.

LIMITATION OF THE EMPLOYER'S DISCIPLINARY

POWER

Prior to the growth of organization among the clothing workers, the employers were unrestricted in their choice of means to make their authority prevail in the shop. Nor were they over-squeamish in their use of this power. Apart, however, from the free resort to discharge and other penalties on every occasion, the galling thing about the system was rather the possibility if not always the fact of petty tyranny and oppression by foremen and executives generally. Personal favoritism on one hand and discrimination, amounting even to persecution, on the other, characterized the relations of those in power toward the rest.

A favorite whip wielded by the employers over the people was discharge. Discharge is, in general, the extreme form of punishment for a worker. It means for him not only a temporary cutting off from his livelihood, but a brand that

in many cases closed against him other doors where employment might be found. The discharge penalty is particularly severe at times when there is a dearth of work in the trade, or, what comes to the same thing, a surplus of labor seeking jobs. It is just at such times, however, that the employer is under the greatest inducement to apply this penalty on slight provocation, since it affords him a convenient method of weeding out" the insubordinate, inefficient, or otherwise undesirable individuals in his employ. And if need be, he experiences no difficulty at such times in filling their places with more willing workers from the street.

This conservatively outlines the tendencies with reference to discharge which had free sway in the industry until the union grew strong enough to counteract them. It accomplished this object of control over discharge not, as in New York, by prohibiting it and thereby laying up against itself for the future the grievances and resentment of the employer. The method in Chicago was that of entrusting to the impartial machinery the function of reviewing the disciplinary acts of the employer, of testing these by the principle of the preferential shop, and allowing it gradually to absorb to itself a large share of power in the entire matter.

The effect of the union upon the kind and degree of penalties imposed upon workers by their employers makes itself felt directly through the Trade Board. But the mere knowledge that any act of discipline may be appealed by the worker affected, through the union to this tribunal, operates as a check upon the employer's free use of his power. Notwithstanding this check, however, many instances of discharge occur which, on being brought to the Trade Board for review, lead to reinstatement of the worker and the substitution of other, usually lighter, forms of penalty. In illustration of this moderating influence exerted by the impartial machinery upon shop discipline, we may cite the case21 of R, a cutter, whose discharge had been ordered as a result of several serious mistakes in his work following repeated complaints on account of poor work. He had, however, immediately called the attention of the foreman to one of the mistakes, thus