The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1891-02-04

SAChAMI
| herewith present to you the causes lead
ing to the strike in your office. In the
flrst place, for some time past complaints
had been brought to the executive Off
GERS OF the union that practices contrary
TO the laws of our union were being con-
| stantly INDUCED in. There has been a
constant friction between those in author
| Ity and the employees. individual en-
| ployes We're prevented from presenting
their grievances to the head of the firm
under penalty Of discharge, well know
ing that the matter would be referred
back to those in charge, and who were
! directly responsible for the alleged griev-
ances. Under the circumstances and in
| accordance with union rules, the matters
We're laid before the executive officers.
Not desiring to bring the question at
issue before the union, the Executive
| Committee wrote to Mr.. III. j. Croker,
manager OF the manufacturing depart
ment, requesting a personal interview.
The communication was ignored. The
| attractions continued and q letter was
written to the senior member of the firm
embodying like request. 1t met the fate
OF the former communication. The mat
ter was then laid before the union, which
body referred it back to the Executive
Committee, with full power to act. The
Executive Committee then formulated
the following agreement, which was sent
to you:
SAN FRANCISCO JAM %. 1891.
l hereby agree in behalf of H. S. Crocker &
Co, that on and after March l. 1891 the
number OF apprentices employed in above
Once snail be that to which we are entitled
under the agreement now existing between
the san Francisco Typographical Union, No
= l; ana the Typothet;e-viz., one apprentice
TO three Journeymen; two to four, five or six:
Lnree 10 seven. eight or nine; beyond nine one
apprentice TO every five journeymen
mat after this date the men now employed
IN our Office Including the foreman of the
book-room, job-room and ticket-room) shall
become members of your union, and that,
pending their initiation, they shall be allowed
to work under permit.
That we win pay the scale of prices as es-
Union, No. 21.
our response was as follows:
In reply to the first demand, will say our
number OF apprentices does not exceed the
number allowed by the union as per agree
Lnent now existing between the san Francisco
typographical Union, No. 81, and the Typo
thet9.
To the second demand we will say. we can
not comply with it. We have no objection to
employing union men, but VIC certainly cam
not ana viii not act as your agents to compel
any one TO Join your union. We have no men
IN our employ in the printing Office not.stock-
| holders III the corporation of II. S. Croker
Company, that, as far as we can learn are not
members of the Typographical Union.
Thirdly. there is no printer in our employ
That gets less than union wages, and in many
cases higher rate is paid by us
Very respectfully yours,
II. s. CROKER & Co.
In reference to the above communica-
ton and reply of II. $. Croker d Co.
the Executive Committees letter contin-
ued:
The first and third propositions are evaded.
The second was not acceicd to on the ostensi
! bic grounds thatthe non-union men in your
employ. together with the recently expelled
nieinb9r of our union. had been made stock
hoidefS III the firm OF Crocher 4 Co. pandinr
the consideration OF the present difficulty
Not only We're these new stockholders ap-
proached, but members of our union were
ilfportulieG for q like purpose. The Intention
! OF this proposition was palpable 1t was a de-
! ilberate attempt to debauch the members of
our Union-to bride those whom it could not
! through your agents. coerce. 1t WAS apnnr-
| emily Imagined that, for q few shares of stock
! the fealty OF our members could be purchased
as soon as II was understood that an attempt
| lad been made mt bribery union men ey-
! pressed the utmost Indignation 1t was re-
| garded as an evidence of the fact that the
heads of a wealthy corporation imagined that
all men were purcnasable. That this view was
| incorrect was illustrated by yesterdays action
OF the union. On that occasion the EMPLOYEES
OF your Office to man, with one exception
voted that their promise was superior to any
monetary consideration.
In regard to the first proposition. relating to
the apprentices, you assert that you have at
Qnder the agreement now existing, between
I.la typographical Union and the Typothet;a
as matter OF fact, you are entitled to seven
apprentices according to the ratio agreed
upon. You have thirteen regular apprentices
and eight extras, who, in absence of other
work, take the place of apprentices. That you
were aware OF this fact we do not claim but
we do assert that you were informed by us on
Monday last of the number employed and
/ that you apparently accepted the statement of
your superintendent in preference to oprs in
face of the fact that the truth or falsity of orr
statement could have been easily proven.
III regard TO the third proposition, we simply
deny that our scale is paid, and refer you to
your own payroll.
subsequently, in an interview with q
Post reporter, II. S. Croker, the head of
the firm, is reported as saping:
1.-The first intimation that I had that
there was any trouble between our office
and the Typographical Union was last
Monday, when delegation from them
called on me and submitted this docu-
ment for, me to sign, saying, Mr.
CFocker, we want you to sign this agree
ment.' read il over. l was in pretty
bad humor ut the time, and returned it
to them and told them l had 10 answer
to make.
1.-The next day a representative of the
international Union, | think some organ
izer, or something connected with the
international Union. called on me. He
said he came to see if the matter could
not be nxed up. 1 told him | regretted
my hastiness in answering the delegation
yesterday. and talked the matter over
pleasantly with him. He said he would
come around next day ard bring the
document which ! handed back to him.
The next day he came, and with him two
others, the Secretary, L think. and one of
the Executive Committee, and we sat
| down and had quite long talk.
! Il told them | did not think we had
any more apprentices than we were en-
titled TO under the agreement-at any
| rate, the agreement did not take effect
until the first of March, and they did not
require it to be complied with until the
LIST of March. | asked further time to
! look into this matter before giving di-
rect answer, and told them would reply
on Saturday ut 3 O'clock
Now, at the first interview had with
them they mentioned about our not pay
ing full overtime. Said /: Gentlemen.
you are mistaken; we haze complied
strictly with that They said we were
only paying As cents an hour for over