DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22140#0193
THE JOINT-STOCK PRINCIPLE IN LABOUR.
177
statutes, when the workman was left to the tender mercies of the
judge-made law of conspiracy.
A trade union is really an industrial partnership, or if you will,
the adaptation of the joint-stock principle to labour. In ordinary
joint-stock action as recognized, protected, and adjudicated on by
law, the owner of property pledges his means in part or in whole
to the undertaking which attracts him. To external appearance
the member of a trade union, which is only recognized by law,
and rather grudgingly recognized, does not in the same way
pledge property or capital. Yet he does not possess that in any
notable degree, which the shareholder in a joint-stock enterprise,
by the very terms of his engagement, does pledge. But he enters
into similar, perhaps more onerous obligations, because more
searching and unquestioned liabilities with the only thing which
he has to sell or dispose of, his labour. Unlike the holder of
joint stock, the law does not bind him to his obligations, and he
can withdraw from the association at his pleasure. His combi-
nation or partnership more nearly resembles the old regulated
company than it does anything else, with this disference, that the
workman's association is, while not banned by the law, unable to
invoke the law in order to give effect to its purposes.
The object of a trade union is to steady and if possible to
increase the share in the price of the produce which the workman
receives. I have frequently stated that the true, and in reality
the most beneficial, function of capital is that of securing the
continuity of industry, and as far as possible an anticipated level
of price. The first of these functions is the permanent service
which capital does to society ; the second is a necessary condition
in the long run to the industrial prosperity of the individual. It
is not infrequently the case that by general misconception the
capitalist may pursue a calling with little profit. This has been,
I believe, the fact to a great extent with the lessees of collieries up
to very recent times, and I believe that I have on other occasions
pointed out the historical origin of this unprofitable competition.
I cannot see in what particular the function and the action of
those who ens;a£e in these labour associations differ from the
policy of the capitalist employer. He knows that to sell his
produce below its cost is to invite ruin, and he is justly charged
13
177
statutes, when the workman was left to the tender mercies of the
judge-made law of conspiracy.
A trade union is really an industrial partnership, or if you will,
the adaptation of the joint-stock principle to labour. In ordinary
joint-stock action as recognized, protected, and adjudicated on by
law, the owner of property pledges his means in part or in whole
to the undertaking which attracts him. To external appearance
the member of a trade union, which is only recognized by law,
and rather grudgingly recognized, does not in the same way
pledge property or capital. Yet he does not possess that in any
notable degree, which the shareholder in a joint-stock enterprise,
by the very terms of his engagement, does pledge. But he enters
into similar, perhaps more onerous obligations, because more
searching and unquestioned liabilities with the only thing which
he has to sell or dispose of, his labour. Unlike the holder of
joint stock, the law does not bind him to his obligations, and he
can withdraw from the association at his pleasure. His combi-
nation or partnership more nearly resembles the old regulated
company than it does anything else, with this disference, that the
workman's association is, while not banned by the law, unable to
invoke the law in order to give effect to its purposes.
The object of a trade union is to steady and if possible to
increase the share in the price of the produce which the workman
receives. I have frequently stated that the true, and in reality
the most beneficial, function of capital is that of securing the
continuity of industry, and as far as possible an anticipated level
of price. The first of these functions is the permanent service
which capital does to society ; the second is a necessary condition
in the long run to the industrial prosperity of the individual. It
is not infrequently the case that by general misconception the
capitalist may pursue a calling with little profit. This has been,
I believe, the fact to a great extent with the lessees of collieries up
to very recent times, and I believe that I have on other occasions
pointed out the historical origin of this unprofitable competition.
I cannot see in what particular the function and the action of
those who ens;a£e in these labour associations differ from the
policy of the capitalist employer. He knows that to sell his
produce below its cost is to invite ruin, and he is justly charged
13