Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-09-06
THE MAINTENANCE OF AGREEMENTS.

The statement that the strike at the Stand
ard Coke Works will result in suit for
breach of contract, on the part of the 81. c.
Frick Coke Company against the members
of the labor organization who have struck,
ith possible retention by the company of
S27, 900 of wages due these men, in case a
verdict should be secured, introduces a new
element in the labor question. 1t brings
out the question of the maintenance of the
agreements made between employers and
employed, and it indicates a course which
may be taken to make such agreements as
binding on the workingmen as on the en-
ployers.
Taking the last issue first. it must be said
that it is one which ought to be unnecessary,
and therefore impossible. 1t can be very
little satisfaction for a concern of the
wealth and enterprise of the Frick Coke
Company to impound s27 900 of the wages of
its workingmen, because they have violated
their agreement. Such course would be
of questionable propriety; and the employ
ers who resort to it should first be certain
that they do not put themselves in the
wrong as clearly as their workmen do by
speaking solely in the interest of wage
workers, the fact that such course appears
to be protection against breach of agree
ment on their part should make it plain
that such breach of agreement on the part
of the labor organizations is an offense
against the interests of labor.
This is really the vital point in the dis
pute at the Standard Coke Works. The
employing company made an agreement
with its men last February for a scale of
wages for the ensuing year. Unless very
different explanation of the paragraph giving
the management "the right to employ any
person or persons they desire to employ"
than appears on Its face. 1t distinctly
covered the point at issue. 1t is hardly
possible to place any neutrality-suspicious.
upon the letter of the committees notifying
the company OF the strike than that of a
violation of the agreement 1t is much to
be hoped that the representatives OF the
coke-workers may be able TO put matters in
different light; but in default Of any ex-
PLANTATION, the prinla faeie case is that an
agreement made in good faith has been
repudiated by the representatives Of the
men.
This is not only a breach of good faith
bat it is ruinous to the interests of labor. If
any benefit is to be gained by reasonable
negotiation with the men, and by meeting
them in their organized efforts to obtain
good wages, 1t must be understood that the
agreements made in their behalf and by
their authority will be scrupulously carried
out. What possible inducement can an
employer have to meet his men halfway in
a wages negotiation, if it is to result in an
agreement which will be binding on
him, and which they can repudiate at
throw away all the progress that has been
made in labor matters for the past ten years;
and would turn labor back to the stage
where the employer who refused to recog-
nize labor organizations, occupied the strong
est position. Yet because the employer can
be forced to keep his contract and the men
cannot-except BY some such onerous course
as already referred to-is the very reason
why it should be understood that an agree
ment once consummated is inyiolsble. and
is to be upheld by the united honor of Or
ganized labor for its benefit and protection.
In this case the violation of the agreement
is peculiarly inexplicable because the scale
fixed under it was recognized when it was
established as very liberal one. If we are
not mistaken it established higher wages
than had .peen known in the coke industry
since it attained its present proportions. To
throw such an agreement to the winds, and
to punish the employer for making liberal
bargain, is not only wanton but it is in
fatuated, as destructive Of the utility of or
ganizsd work on behalf of labor. We hope
that when the coke-workers see how the