a trade union, no matter how conservative it may be—and no matter how reactionary its leaders,—may, upon occasions, make wage demands or ask for hours and conditions which the employer refuses to grant. The struggle for the surplus value of labor's toil is always implicit in any "employer-employee situation," as it is called. A union, not under the thumb of the employer, cannot always be depended upon to obey his commands and carry out his wishes. Hence his preference for his own kind of committee. Hence the opposition of trade unions to company unions. Hence the efforts of the employer when confronted with trade unions, to try to break them to pieces and to introduce his "functional" company committee.
In this section we shall examine some evidence which will help to explain why the employer installs company unions and why he uses them to undermine every other kind of union organization.
One student of the problem, E. J. Miller, of the University of Illinois, explaining the rapid increase in the number of plans in 1918–1919, says:
"Labor problems were becoming more and more acute all thru the country. Industrial unrest was at its height, and the number of strikes was increasing rapidly. Labor turnover was a serious problem to many concerns."
This observation has been made by others including a dozen or so college professors who have looked into the development and growth of company unions during this period. Underlying all other motives ran that common fear of labor organizations and a desire to find a substitute that would, the employer hoped, satisfy the restless workers.
The Employers' Interests Primary.
Certain unmistakable assumptions underlie the company union, They appear again and again in the literature describing it. For example in A Works Council Manual, issued by the National Industrial
13
