46 POLITICAL ECONOMY 



employment. The highly skilled workman is always spoken of 



by middle-class writers as a man anxious and likely to rise in 



the world. This is untrue ; the men who rise do not rise in 



virtue of their skill as workmen, but because they possess other 



qualities far more valuable, and which, in fact, are rarely found 



in combination with extreme skill at the bench. The evidence 



given before the Commission has failed to show that skilled 



workmen think themselves aggrieved, or that the unions have 



prevented workmen from rising. In general, all allegations on 



the part of masters that unions are baneful to their members 



must be received with great caution. The members of unions 



are extremely well satisfied with them, as any one mixing with 



workmen will soon discover. In fine, if unions are to bargain, 



they can only bargain for the standard rate of wages ; they may 



refuse to allow their own members to receive less, taking the risk 



of having to support incompetent members. It is wrong that 



skilled workmen should . be prevented from gaining in unions 



as much as they would out of the union, and this is. in fact, not 



practised ; if it were and if the highly skilled men chose to 



remain in the unions without coercion, we fail to see how we 



can interfere to prevent their working at less wages' than they 



are worth. The complaint that unions made men indolent 



seems also based on misconception. Many masters complain 



that men are lazy, and declare that unions make them lazy. It 



is undeniable that men who are tolerably certain of employment 



will not work so hard as men to whom loss of employment means 



pauperism. If, therefore, unions have made and do make men 



more independent and less liable to starve, they probably do 



make them less industrious ; but though hard work is good, we 



doubt the propriety of keeping men poor in order that they may 



work the harder. As a proof of indolence, masters cite the 



general dislike of over-time avowed by trade-unions. 



The question of over-time is thoroughly misunderstood by 

 the general public. By refusing to work more than ten hours, 

 or even eight hours a day, a man may put his employer to some 

 inconvenience ; he may make less money than if he worked 

 fourteen or sixteen hours per diem, and indirectly he may in- 

 crease the cost of articles to the consumer; but surely if he 

 can by working eight hours each day gain as much money as 



