Should the American trade unions preserve their present type of organization, uniting workers of only one distinct trade, or should they reorganize into industrial unions representing all workers in any given industry regardless of what work is performed by the workers? This question at present is being discussed in a lively manner by the American trade unions, and in the opinion of some observers it may lead to a split in the ranks of American organized labor.

What are, then, the pros and cons of this controversy? Let us begin with the protagonists of craft unionism. First of all they point out that this is not a new question, and that the controversy on this subject has more than once led to schism in the ranks of American organized labor. Trade unionism presupposes an organization based on the craft or the profession in which the worker or employee is engaged. It is true that the first American unions were industrial in character, for they received workers into the fold irrespective 2of the kind of mark which they performed. The Order of the Knights of Labor was also open both to skilled workmen and to common laborers. But the American Federation of Labor was founded in 1881 as an organization purely of trade-union workers. The leaders of this federation always considered that only trained workers are irreplaceable in industry, and that therefore they are the only ones who can defend the cause of labor and lead the other workers in contests. Common labor can easily be replaced, and it's hard to organize it.

In later years the Federation of Labor, it is claimed by its defenders, recognized the importance of organizing semi-skilled and even unskilled labor.

At present only a few entirely distinct and purely professional unions remain in the country. The great majority of the unions now are of the mixed kind, to which workers of closely related crafts or professions belong. This is particularly true in regard to the building, steel, and machine-tool industries and the food-processing trade. Besides these there are the so-called amalgamated unions, which unite workers of the entire industry and yet preserve a subdivisional 3structure [based on the various]trades. Finally, there are federal unions that accept semi-skilled workers and then distribute them among the proper trade unions. Those who advocate dividing unions according to trades recognize that in some industries it is more practical to organize industrial unions, but they also consider that the control over organized labor should remain in the hands of unions representing highly trained workers, for the latter have always been the base and the nucleus of American trade unionism.

The advocates of industrial unionism approach this question from an angle quite different. They regard the professional type of labor union as an obsolete form of organization, a survival of bygone times which does not correspond with present developments in economic and industrial life. New inventions, new technique, automatic machinery, and mass production systematically reduce the demand for highly trained labor and make of all workers only small screws in the huge, highly complicated industrial machine. In mass production each worker is engaged in repeating the same process, such as screwing on a nut or moving a certain lever. In the production of coal, steel, and 4automobiles and,in a number of other industries unskilled labor predominates. Under such conditions, if in one and the same mill ten or twelve unions seek to function, it is unthinkable that they can act in accord for the best defense of the workers' rights.

J. L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers, is at present the leader of the industrial unionism. In his opinion the old type of trade-unionism creates a kind of "workers aristocracy" and leaves the great mass of the workers out. The fact that the American Federation of Labor includes only ten per cent of American workers he explains by the fact that the doors of the majority of trade unions remain closed against the rank-and-file workers. In mass production there is no division of workers according to trades, and it is therefore more logical to organize workers according to industries. In the opinion of Mr. Lewis it is particularly important so to organize them at present, when every-where we see the appearance of the so-called company unions, which enroll all the workers in the plant irrespective of their occupations. Under existing conditions the number of trained workers in industries is very limited, and they cannot even pretend to defend the interest of all workers. The American 5labor movement cannot grow strong as long as only ten per cent of the workers belong to the unions, and the rest are left out.

Last year's convention of the American Federation of Labor permitted existing unions to enroll qualified workers in the automobile, cement, and aluminum industries and in several others in which mass production predominates. The United Mine Workers' Union interpreted this action as directed against the industrial unions and decided to exert every effort toward reorganizing all trade unions into industrial unions. Such a decision was in violation of the resolution passed by the convention of the American Federation of Labor and put before organized labor the problem of industrial unionism.

W. Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, in his appeal to preserve the unity of organized labor declared that the Federation has room both for the unions of the old type and for the industrial kind. It is possible that a break between the Federation and the Miners' Union will be avoided, but the latter's decision to keep the CIO functioning and to continue the work of 6organizing unions of the new type has left the problem open pending further developments in this field.