1. Why do you think it was necessary to dissolve the relationship between criminal conspiracy and the labor movement? What was the relationship given between criminal acts and employees’ rights to control their environment at work?

2. Why do you think the court found that there was some good in organizing to affect the employer’s policies? Explain.

3. Do you agree with the court’s analysis in this case? Explain.

Issue: Whether concerted activity by shoemaker-employees constituted illegal criminal conspiracy.

Facts: Shoemakers formed themselves into a society and agreed not to work for anyone who would hire someone not in the union after giving notice that such a worker would be discharged. The intent of the rule was to give them power to exert on behalf of the employees.

Decision: The court determined that such an organization does not constitute a criminal conspiracy. The court said the organization could be for exerting useful and honorable purposes or for dangerous and pernicious ones, or to afford assistance to each other in times of poverty, sickness and distress or to raise their intellectual, moral, and social condition or to make improvement in their art or for other purposes. But to assume that those who become members are guilty of criminal conspiracy goes too far. It would have to be proven to be criminal in order for the criminal conspiracy to be effective.