There was much immediate experience to justify the view of the state that Gompers and his followers took. Labor's experience with the courts, in particular, seemed to confirm the severest cynicism as to their function, for the machinery of the law had repeatedly been twisted to labor's disadvantage. Whereas the Sherman Act appeared to be proving ineffective in dealing with the trusts, it was quickly and devastatingly turned against unions. The labor injunction as developed by corporation lawyers turned into a perversion of law and justice, and the courts were willing accomplices in the process. In view of the courts' record in using the Sherman Act against labor, Gompers can perhaps be forgiven for terming the Act 'that legislative monstrosity.' Nevertheless, labor's attitude toward the courts and the law was much more hostile during Gompers' time than any likely to be taken today. The difficulty, as it was seen then, lay not merely in a particular law or a distortion of certain legal processes, but in a fundamental fraud in the entire body of law and the entire court system: 'Place it in the power of the courts to take jurisdiction, to assume jurisdiction, or to have jurisdiction accredited to them, and they will leave no stone unturned to exercise it to the detriment of the men and women of labor, who, after all, in all times have been compelled to suffer the tyranny and the oppression of an oligarchy, under whatever name it might be known.’
Although the immediate reasons for the AFL (American Federation of Labor) leaders' mistrust of the legal system were wrong, it is worth observing that it went beyond the idea that the courts had abused their trust or that the law had been perverted. In comments made by AFL leaders on the law and the courts was an implicit dislike for the very idea of law, and not merely for the law that touched labor. As one modern observer has said, the AFL made 'a principled attack on law and on the state.' And beyond this was a simple but firm conviction that the essence of law was compulsion.
An AFL vice president asked in 1902 why there should be any wait for the slow process of the law, 'when we can exert sure and certain economic power.' Reliance on economic power which largely meant collective bargaining (including ultimate recourse to strikes) and the boycott and a rather minimal reliance on friendly benefits-was the converse of hostility to the state and to political action. Economic action was self-help, 'the best help'; it represented the nearest approximation of individualism in the context of organization. Above all it was ‘most congenial’ to solution of the very troubling problem of keeping the labor movement united in any organization whatsoever.
1. What did Gompers view as an oligarchy at the end of paragraph 1?A. the AFL
B. corporate lawyers
C. the courts
D. the trusts
E. the legislature
2. When the AFL discussed ‘economic power’, what did they mean?A. The wealth of AFL leaders
B. The use of lawsuits for large sums to advance the agenda of the AFL
C. Pushing a communist agenda that transfers wealth to workers
D. Advancing laws to push the AFL agenda
E. Boycotts, collective bargaining and strikes
3. In order to advance its interests, the AFL preferred to rely on:A. economic power instead of legal power
B. legislative redress instead of litigation
C. economic and legal power
D. political pressure and boycott
E. judicial and legislative relief
4. What did ‘self help’ solve as described at the end of paragraph 3.A. it allowed workers to become self-employed and leave the union.
B. it emphasized educational opportunities for self-improvement
C. it was an easy solution to unite the labor movement
D. it provided a means to fight legal action against the union
E. means for addressing the psychological problems and pressures of workers