the exercise of his right to work or to enter upon employment. Violators of these provisions are usually guilty of misdemeanors and subject to fines and imprisonment, and they also may be subject to unfair-laborpractice proceedings and injunctions.

Secondary Boycotts as a Breach of the Peace. A number of state laws expressly outlaw the secondary boycott. Minnesota, for example, declares: 50

It is recognized that whatever may be the rights of disputants with respect to each other in any controversy, they should not be permitted, in their controversy, to intrude directly into the primary rights of third parties to earn a livelihood, transact business, and engage in the ordinary affairs of life by lawful means and free from molestation, interference, restraint, or coercion. The legislature, therefore, declares that in its considered judgment, the public good and the general welfare of the citizens of this State will be promoted by prohibiting secondary boycotts and other coercive practices in this State. The Minnesota statute 51 defines secondary boycott to mean

any combination, agreement, or concerted action (a) to refuse to handle goods or to perform services for an employer because of a labor dispute, agreement, or failure of agreement between some other employer and his employees or a bona fide labor organization; or (b) to cease performing or to cause any employees to cease performing any services for an employer, or to cause loss or injury to such employer or to his employees, for the purpose of inducing or compelling such employer to refrain from doing business with, or handling the products of, any other employer because of a dispute, agreement, or failure of agreement between the latter and his employees or a labor organization; or (c) to cease performing or to cause any employer to cease performing any services for another employer, or to cause any loss or injury to such other employer, or to his employees, for the purpose of inducing or compelling such other employer to refrain from doing business with, or handling the products of, any other employer because of an agreement, dispute, or failure of agreement between the latter and his employees or a labor organization.

Other states which have enacted statutes outlawing secondary boycotts include Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.

50 Minnesota Laws 1947, Chap. 486, Sec. 1. 51 Ibid., Sec. 2.

PART THREE

Activities of Employers

CHAPTER 13

Employers' Organizations

It is interesting, but somewhat idle, to speculate about causes and effects in the organization of employers and employees. Organizations among both employers and employees can be traced far back into antiquity. Wherever and whenever it has been mutually desirable for individuals to band themselves together for protection from any common danger, they have done so. The craft guilds of England were organizations of self-employed craftsmen set up for the protection of individuals against society. In large part they protected individuals against the encroachment of others in the same craft. There was little need for protection of employers against workers; consequently this motive for organization hardly existed. Neither were the frequent combinations of laborers in England during the fourteenth century aimed primarily at employers; they were formed to combat the restrictions placed by Parliament upon prices as well as upon wages.

Records show that at the end of the thirteenth century spontaneous revolts of laborers against their masters were already taking place. In these early cases the courts sternly admonished the laborers to refrain from forming "alliances," "covines," "confederacies," etc., though the guild organizations of master craftsmen were permitted to exist unmolested. Of course, the guilds observed existing laws and championed the status quo, while the laborers organized to break existing customs that had become intolerable to them. This pattern has been followed, in general, up to modern times. The nature of capitalistic production makes it necessary for employers to organize in order adequately to protect their rights. As for employees, the individual is in a weak bargaining position in dealing with most employers. Hence it is to the interest of employees to organize for higher wages, shorter work days, better conditions, etc. Employees' organizations have often sought, through legislation or direct action, to take away certain legal rights from employers and even to change the economic system. Employers organize for many reasons, some of which are to divide markets, to exchange price and

credit information, to fix prices, to squeeze out competition, to encourage technical progress, to invade foreign markets, to pool patents and other resources, to prevent unfair competition, to advertise the industry, to lobby for favorable legislation, to prevent the organization of other groups opposing employers' interests, and to fight existing organizations which threaten such interests. Although employers' associations have been formed in response to, and as a protection against, the organization of labor, the reverse is equally true. Both employees' and employers' associations have developed in response to needs which have their roots in the nature of our free-enterprise economic system.

The Modern Development of Employers' Associations. One of the earliest modern employers' organizations, the General Managers' Association, was founded in 1886. This organization, comprising the twentyfour railroads using tracks into Chicago, was formed after many of these railroads had experienced several years of labor troubles and strikes. Local associations had been active throughout the country for many years, but with the founding of the General Managers' Association, the trend toward national organization of employers began. Local associations continued actively to order lockouts and to negotiate trade agreements with unions, while the new national associations confined themselves to fighting unions on a broad front.1

In the same year in which the Chicago railway association was founded, the previously organized National Association of Stove Manufacturers formed the Stove Founders' National Defense Association for the purpose of protecting and defending its members from unjust, unlawful, and unwarranted demands of labor. From 1886 to 1891 the new association successfully combatted the strikes called in its members' plants by the Iron Molders' Union of North America. In 1891 peace was negotiated between the two organizations, and a working arrangement was drawn up which lasted, with occasional lapses, over a quarter of a century.2

Meanwhile other national associations were being formed for purposes of negotiating agreements with unions. Such national labor agreements were more widely negotiated in this period than at any time since, not excepting the period following World War II, when industry-wide collective bargaining gained currency. Between 1898 and 1902 national trade agreements with unions were concluded by the Newspaper Publishers' Association and the National Founders' Association. The National Metal Trades Association was organized in 1899, and the following year

1 Clarence E. Bonnett, Employers' Associations in the United States, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1922, p. 22.

2 Ibid., pp. 40-42.

3 Jesse Thomas Carpenter, Employers' Associations and Collective Bargaining in New York City, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 1950.