The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1868-04-11

The .st Hon. Sir EDNUND WAIKIR HHAD, Bart.
SIR DAsIKL eoocH, Bart, MP
HErNAs MEkfvALE, Eco o. r.
JANIS B00rH, ESQ. q. 3.
THOMAS HUsuss Esq, u. P.
FEKDsfcE ARuscS, Esq.
Mr.. RoBEKf- APFLEeAKrH examined.
ICoNuNrED
Sir d. Gooeh-TNen Ii v did strike ,
Yes. hey ain. After findin that thew have
given such length Of notice, and that they
had been treated in such a manner, our coun-
ell icit that We could not do less than give
cur sanction 70 a strike. wish now to give
some evidence with reference To d remark
made by Mr. Nault on more occasions
than one, with regard 10 the adoption ii
working rules, in which there were these oh
ieetionable clauses about piece-work. He
implies that the feeling against piece work
il much more general amongst the men than
amongst The masters. That | DENY. / BE-
levo that the feeling against piece. work is
almost as general amongst EMPLOYERS as
amongst workmen. Here is a code of rules
have II my hand adopted in 1864, in Hud-
dersheld, and not signed by the men at al ,
hut il says, Signed on behalf Of the
master carpenters and joiners, John Faw-
cett, chairman; John Rushforth, secre
tary,H and one OF the rules reads thus, "Tbat
piece-work be abolished Now if | am told
that il was through the pressure Of the soci.
cites that the employers did draw I'D and
ign these rules, my answer is that at that
time we had seventeen members Of our own
and there WAS local society with about the
same number Gf members. In the census Of
1861, there were 500 joiners and twentv-four
master builders, ard If You think that about
thirty.'nur M put pressure on the masters
20 sign that Tuie you will give them more
credit than give them. | have a communi-
ca.ion here from Belfast. In that communi-
cation | ind that ore Of cur members '.had
charge of job at Templemore Park, near
Belfast; IN The architects specification sub
contracting and piece-work in the ioiners'
department is strictly prohibited This ar
chltect always inserted an anii-pieee- work
clause NJ he thought Jerry builder THAT
Is slop '1ilder) "was hkei, 20 get the con
tract. The lar5c ~ant-actors have no piece
work in the j0ineTy. The name Of the ar
chitect Is Mr. Barre, designer of the Belfast
Albert Memorial, and doing very extensive
business" So that az far as the architects
are concerned, they are opposed To piece
~orE, because they believe with many Of the
men That piece-work il the means Of intro
ducIng bad Workmanship aud bad material
in our traue.
Chalrman-What does the introduction of
bad material signify 10 the j0iners 2 can
not understand why piece-Wofk for floors, II
you call that ioinering, should lead 10 that
result, but piece-WoTk FOR nice moulding
can well understand would lead TO bad or
inferior work Do not think that there i
any objection on the part Ct tae men to do
ing floors by Diece-woTk, but | wish to say
in respect to the evidence which | gave on
piece work before, that my remarks was in-
tended TO apply to my own trade articrlar-
". Ia other trades, for instance tie knife
trade, where you can handle the article and
see exactly what il is aud that no deception
ran be pracuced, then believe that the work
Nuld be Just as well done, and PERHAPS
bett done, hy pIece-wOfk, but In the build
ing {. lde there can be and is so much decep-
ton | racticed that the only way or the
workm to get fair wage, and for the en-
r!oyer II have his fair, and only hi fair pro
TIT, and Tor the public TO get in rlturn for
their onev a good article, would be by
adoptu : such a system as you la ge ia the
code o. orklng rules IN Leeds. The rules
there re Signed by "Jahez Wool ~, chair
man e lie masters, v Ii. Niche son. Jun.
secreta Il FOR ditto; Henry Rodgers, for the
workm, John Ieesdale, secretary for
ditto; III md ~ the code Of rules 1t SAYS,
''That : zee work be abolished Ia ioiners'
work. have here a communication from
the seer tary Of our branch IN which he
sums up he histor5 Of that rule lie SAYS.
In the ring Of s04 the operative carpen-
tiers and Joners Of Leeds, eighty ia number,
20 were IN union oalied together to dis
cuss their position and prospects the whole
Of the men IN thai branch OF the building
trade. Between 100 and 500 met and ap.
pointed committee Of ST. society and eleven
ucn-society men TO draw up a code Of work
ing rules 10 govern the trade between en-
ployer and employed At another meeting
the lab0rS Of the committee were approved
Of, and copy Of the proposed laws was or
dered TO be sent to every master joiner and
builder IN Leeds and district, with re-
quest that they would inform tie work mems
committee by the 18th Of May VII ether they
would accept them or not. THE committee
received no response from the employers.
IL was then decided 10 call q meeting u shop
representatives, VINO decided on requesting
the men IN Mr.. InoTpe's employ u cease
work until arrangements could be ma Z ss Il
is worthy O. remark 70 show how mes OF
Mr. 4norpe's men sere connected wit ,he
union, VIZ, three OUT Of between SEVENTY and
eighty employed at that tims." Now il las
often been imputed to societies that they ini-
tiate strikes, and htre is al instance where
there were between seventh and eighty non
union men, who to a man came out, while
there were only three union men. "Mr.
Iborpe's men ceased work on the Saturday
On the following Wednesday the great bulk
OF The men were locked out by he other en-
ployeTs. On the following Saturday an
equal number OF employers and workmen
mct and amicaby came to TENS. The rules
submitted by the men were ken ia detail,
and agr I'd to with such alterations as were
considered necessary. | can distinctly re-
member that when rule 5, In reference 10
pece-work, was read by the chairman, Mr.
WoolleYs before any o. the woI kmen's re-
presenatIYes could say a word, Mr. Thorpe
rose and proposed that Il should be adopted,
MIR. Nicholson, secretary to the masters, Sc
conded MT. Thorpe's proposition, when Mr.
Billion, an employer, objected TO abolishIng
piece-wcrk in carpenters work. (the rule As
framed applied to both carpenter and join.
ers work land 70 meet the wishes If some
Of the employers - men gave way, although
they could have carried the rule as it nAs
originally submitted, viz, that piece work
be abolished. In MFR. Thorpe's letter, which
wa read py Mr.. Wilson to the commission
ers, he states that some preferred piece work.
l wonder If those preferred that kind Of
work who only earned 2s Cd. per day at it,
and who were good average workmen, but
through circumstances over which they had
no control they were obliged to submit TO
MI ThrppQ>e terms - IL WAS tho a., 4 49,,
Of the year when they nad TO either accept
the work on the terms offered or seek en-
ployment elsewhere" Mr.. Wilson -sad a