3. _The need of organization of labor has grown with the growth of factories and with the loss of personal touch among the workers._ This is another aspect of the point just mentioned. The smaller the number of employers, the easier is it by an understanding to suppress competition on their side. If there is only one factory of a kind in a town or city, the employer is able to drive a harder bargain with the worker. Especially in times of industrial depression is a change of employment difficult for the laborer; it involves much risk, and loss of time and money in moving. In the long run competition must be felt even in such cases. The unfair employer will find his workmen drifting away, his force reduced in number and quality, and his evil reputation going abroad among workmen. But there is a great deal of friction in this adjustment and the loss falls largely upon the workman. In a large industry, especially, the workers have no personal acquaintance with each other, nothing to give them a sense of unity and power. In the old-fashioned shop, with its close association and its interchange of views, could grow up a strong public opinion; but in the wilderness of a modern factory the worker may be unknown in name and character to the man who touches elbows with him. Moreover, in America differences in nationality and in speech among immigrant workers is often an effective factor in preventing the assertion of their interests. There is an analogy (though it is only an analogy) between these conditions and the political conditions that have led pure democracies to give way to representative governments. So long as a community is small and men know each other personally, there may be popular government, but when the number becomes larger the only way in which public opinion can be concentrated and made effective is by delegating the functions of government to representatives. [Sidenote: Main objects of trade-unions to-day]