Though the Union leaders had agreed to eliminate the discussion of the closed shop before they entered into negotiations, it was almost impossible for them to refrain from suggesting it as a means of enforcing agreements.  As one of the cloak makers, one of the old leaders of the labor movement in America, said:  “This organization of cloak makers in the city of New York can only control the situation where Union people are employed.  They have absolutely no control of the situation where non-union people are employed.  They cannot enforce any rules, nor any discipline of any kind, shape, or description, and if we are to cooeperate in any way that will be absolutely effective, then the ...  Manufacturers’ Association, ... it seems to me, should see that the necessary first step is that they shall run Union shops."[28]

The Union shop the speaker had in mind, the Union shop advocated by the Vorwaerts and desired, as it proved, by a majority of the workers, was a different matter from the closed shop, which constitutes a trade monopoly by limiting the membership of a trade to a certain comparatively small number of workers.

The institution of the closed shop is by intention autocratic and exclusive.  The institution of the Union shop is by intention democratic and inclusive.  With the cloak makers’ organization, entrance into the Union was almost a matter of form.  There were no prohibitive initiation fees, or dues, as in other unions.  They offered every non-union man and woman an opportunity to join their ranks.

The manufacturers contended that they had no objection to the voluntary enlistment of non-union men in Union ranks; but they would not insist that all their workers belong to the Union.

This deadlock was reached on the third day of the conference.  At this point Mr. Brandeis brought before the meeting the opinion that “an effective cooeperation between the manufacturers and the Union ... would involve, ... of necessity, a strong Union.”  “I realize,” he said, ... “from a consideration of ... general Union questions, that in the ordinary open shop, where that prevails, there is great difficulty in building up the Union.  I felt, therefore, particularly in view of the fact that so many of the members of the Garment Workers’ Union are recent members, that to make an effective Union it was necessary that you should be aided ... by the manufacturers, ... and that aid could be effectively ... given by providing that the manufacturers should, in the employment of labor hereafter, give preference to Union men, where the Union men were equal in efficiency to any non-union applicants....  That presented in the rough what seemed to me a proper basis for coming together....  I think, if such an arrangement as we have discussed can be accomplished, it will be the greatest advance, not only that unionism has made in this country, but it would be one of the greatest advances that has generally been made in improving the condition of the working-man, for which unionism is merely an instrument.”