The Penn's Grove record., 1888-06-16
Arbitration in English Mines.

Mr.. Thomas Burt, M. p, writes the
Philadelphia Press, an interesting
account Of the mines Of the Newcastle
coal region in which he thus de-
scribes the effects of arbitration there:
For two or three years-commenc-
ing in decentralization was tried. In
that short period no fewer than five
disputes relating to the general rate Of
wages or the mode of working in
Northumberland were referred to arbi-
tration. The market was depressed
and still failing. the demands for
change came, therefore, In every case
from the employers. The decisions, as
might be expected, were nearly always
against the workmen; yet, without ok
ception, they loyalty accepted and car
RED the award Of the umpire. After.
wards when a further reduction of
wages was demanded the coalowners
refused to arbitrate. A strike or lock-
out Of several weeks duration ensued,
with the disastrous results which
usually follow such conflicts. This was
towards the end Of 1877. Two years
later-in 1879-a sliding scale, adjust
Ing wages on the basis Of prices, was
established. That system. once or
twice modified in the interval, con-
tinued in operation from 1879 to
the end of 1886. Notice was then
given by the coal-owners to terminate,
or as they said. to modify the scale
with a view to a reduction OF wages.
Fifteen per cent. reduction was de-
manded; this was altered to 12t per
cent. A general strike followed. After
great, and probably lasting, injury to
a trade already bad enough. after
untold suffering and restitution, the
workmen at the end OF seventeen
weeks were compelled to accept the
employers terms. Another sliding
scale was established. In November of
last year, the miners, in their turn,
gave notice to terminate it, and it
ended with the year 1887.
In the foregoing statement l have
record of facts. l have tried to avoid
attacking one side or the other. The
facts are significant and instructive.
Employer and workmen alike l believe
sincerely wished to settle their differ
ences amicaDly. There was at all
times a readiness on the part of
the coal owners 70 meet the repre-
sentatiyes of the miners. There was a
frank interchange of opinion be-
tween them, and yet the result was
what l have stated; arbitration dis
carded, sliding scales abolished; en-
ployers and workmen, instead of CO.
operating as friends, standing face to
face in battle array. After many years
of labor and thought the only survival
-aIgreat and valuable survival certainly
of u c~onciliatOry efforts is the joint
committee.
The facts ] have detailed are dis
.couraging enough, but it would be an
error to use them as an argument
against arbitration. Arbitration was
not itself a failure; In some respects,
notably in the readiness OF thousands
of workmen to accept an adverse de-
cision-it was a great success. The
chief drawback was in not having a
permanent board of Cancellation and
arbitration. This caused needless fric-
ton and delay, and had much to do
with the abandonment-the foolish
and mischievous abandonment-of ar
bitration by the employers.
This is likewise true, in some cases,
In this country; but where a permanent
State Court OF Reconciliation aud Ar.
bitration is established, as In Massa-
chusetts, the result is very satisfactory.