James Boyd Kennedy - Beneficiary Features of American Trade Unions

Professor of Political Economy in Wells College

SERIES XXVI NOS. 11-12

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES

IN

HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

Under the Direction of the

Departments of History, Political Economy, and Political Science

November-December, 1908

This monograph had its origin in the investigations of American trade-union activities which have engaged the attention of the Economic Seminary of the Johns Hopkins University since October, 1902. It was begun and completed while the author was a graduate student at the University.

The study is based on a survey of the beneficiary activities of national and international trade unions. While no attempt has been made to study in detail the various forms of mutual insurance maintained by local trade unions, frequent references are made thereto, inasmuch as the local activities have usually an important genetic connection with the national. The sources from which information has been secured are the trade-union publications in the Johns Hopkins University collection and important documents at the headquarters of different unions. These have been supplemented by personal interviews with prominent officials and labor leaders.

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance received, at every stage of the work, from Professor Jacob H. Hollander and Associate Professor George E. Barnett of the Department of Political Economy of the Johns Hopkins University.

J.B.K.

The American trade unions have developed beneficiary functions far more slowly than the trade unions of England and Germany. Only since about 1880 has there been any considerable increase in such activities. Prior to that time the national unions with few exceptions paid no benefits. The local unions, here and there, developed beneficiary systems, but these were not continuous nor, in many cases, important.

The history of trade-union beneficiary activities in the United States may be roughly divided into three periods. In the first, extending from the beginning of the century to about 1830, the local associations laid great stress on their beneficiary functions. The societies of printers organized from 1794 to 1815 in the most important American cities were typical of the period. In all of them, as far as the extant records show, the beneficiary functions were regarded as equally important with the trade-regulating activities. American trade unionism owed its origin as much to the desire to associate for mutual insurance as to the desire to establish trade rules.

The second period, from 1830 to 1880, was marked by the subordination of beneficiary to trade purposes. The maintenance of a minimum rate and other trade policies came to occupy the foremost place in the program of the local unions. In this period national unions were formed in many trades.

The new national unions were not strong enough to establish beneficiary systems. Moreover, at many points the establishment of local benefits conflicted with the success of the national organizations. A local union was usually forced to impose certain restrictions upon claimants of benefits, either an initiation fee or a requisite term of membership, in order to protect its funds. Such limitations on the full participation of all members in the benefits of membership militated severely against the carrying out of the prime function of the national unionsthe nationalization of membership. The leaders in the trade-union movement of this period were interested chiefly in strengthening the relations of the local unions. They saw, therefore, in the local benefits a hindrance to the accomplishment of their aims. By 1860 it had become a fairly well accepted doctrine that a trade union should not attempt to develop beneficiary functions. It was argued that since the expense of maintaining benefits made the dues of members higher, persons who might otherwise join the unions were prevented from doing so. The leaders of the Iron Molders for years opposed the introduction of beneficiary features on the ground that the development of such activities was likely to interfere with the trade functions of the organization. In 1866 President Sylvis for this reason vigorously opposed the introduction of a national sick benefit. The same views were entertained by the leaders of the other more important unions of the period.

Shortly after the close of the Civil War the rapid growth of mutual insurance companies attracted the attention of many trade unionists. The formation of insurance associations under the auspices of the national unions with a membership limited to the members of the unions was discussed in the most important organizations of the day. In many of them voluntary associations of one kind and another were inaugurated. The Granite Cutters, the Iron Molders and the Printers all experimented after this fashion. Only in the railway brotherhoods did these insurance systems develop into a permanent feature.

The development of beneficiary functions by the leading national unions began about 1880. The benefits administered by these organizations do not interfere with the nationalization of membership. A new theory as to the relation between the beneficiary and the trade functions began about 1880 to gain wide acceptance. It was argued and with much force that the benefits were a direct aid in the accomplishment of trade purposes. While some leaders of the older school have seen in the rapid development of beneficiary functions a danger to the unions, the greater number who have come into positions of authority since 1880 have steadily advocated the establishment of benefits.

The following table gives the year in which the principal national unions were organized, together with the date and order of introduction of their national benefit systems.