it is historically impossible for an old and outgrown and out-of-date labor organization to adapt itself to a new economic situation.
Reform unions rarely, if ever, become revolutionary bodies.
It is admitted that there are thousands of unions in the field. These unions all have staffs of officers, whose names are legion and on the payroll. They all draw salaries and expense money. They don’t want the working class united—that would mean an army of jobless leaders. You would be amazed if you knew how many of such union officials there are: and you would be still more amazed if you knew the aggregate amount of salary and expenses, millions of dollars, they draw every year. Now, they, like you, are looking out for their jobs. It is perhaps too much to expect them to discharge themselves. It is to their personal interest to keep the workers of the country divided into a thousand different organizations, so that a thousand different sets of officials will be required; so that a thousand sets of officials may draw salary from the scant wages of the working class. You may be told that the reason I am in favor of a new union is that I am a discredited labor leader and that I am trying to create a new job for myself. The truth is that if I had been inclined to serve the corporations instead of the workers I could have been in a high official position all these years. I could have been drawing a large salary and enjoying to the full the popularity of what is miscalled successful labor leadership.
You railroad men know that the late P. M. Arthur, grand chief of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, was called by the capitalist press very successful labor leader. He was successful only in the sense that he served
