The Labor Journal’s Lesson in Hypocrisy
A satirical exchange exposes the double standards applied to organized labor versus corporate 'community of interest' trusts.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Our foreign friend who had just come over asked us to help him acquire a knowledge of our language. We consented, but after the first lesson we quit. 'When a lot of men get together to fix the price of their goods you call it a community of interests, do you not?' he asked. We assented. 'And when the men whose labor makes those same goods get together to fix the price of their labor you call it a restraint of trade, do you not?' Again we assented. 'And when manufacturers of any certain line of goods get together and divide up territory you call it wise business acumen, do you not?' Once more we assented. 'Then, when the men whose labor makes those goods get together and insist on setting a limit in the purchase of the goods you call it a violation of the antitrust law, I believe.' This was so obviously true that we couldn't deny it. 'And when men get together to limit the output of their factories in order to uphold prices and profits you call it good business judgment, I perceive.' Again we nodded assent. 'And if trades unions limit the number of apprentices in order to prevent a flooding market you call it an injustice to free American boys, I see.' This, also, was true, and we admitted it. 'Also, when employers insist upon the right to name the price they will pay for labor you insist that this is a vested privilege. Am I correct?' We said he was. 'But when workingmen organize and insist upon the right of having some voice in the disposition of their labor you call it trades union tyranny, I believe.' By this time we were becoming somewhat impatient and rather regretted our willingness to act as a teacher of language. 'And when a body of men seek to prevent the sale of any article you thrust those who attempted it into jail, but when another set of men organize to destroy a competing factory you call it wise business forethought, and reward them with election to high office and point to them as captains of industry. Why is it?' By this time we were wholly out of patience and said so. As a result we are no longer engaged in teaching the peculiarities of our language.
“When a lot of men get together to fix the price of their goods you call it a 'community of interests,' but when the men whose labor makes those same goods get together to fix the price of their labor you call it a 'restraint of trade.'”
This 1909 dialogue perfectly captures the persistent tension in economic discourse between 'market freedom' for corporations and 'collusion' for workers. Over a century later, the language has shifted to 'labor market flexibility,' but the fundamental hypocrisy the author identifies remains a central theme in modern political arguments over unionization and wage stagnation.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.