Telegram-herald., 1891-03-23
VIOLATING HIS OWN LAWS.
The Brickiayers shown to he Inconsist-
ent ahd HypocriticaI.

GRAND kAPIpS, March -, 1881.
To the Editor of the TELKGRAN-HERsLo:
President Pat Hayes, of the Brick
layers and Masons' Union, No. l, of
Michigan, Is laying bricks on stone
foundation wall. so called by union
men. That Is, a stone foundation wall
built by others than members of their
union, and IS q distinct violation OF
their laws Just enacted, and of which
due notice was served on the mason
contractors and builders of the Ex-
change, and which reads as follows:
DEAR SIR:-Ihls Is 10 inform you that
after February Ii, 1891. the bricklayers
and masons of this union Will not be al
lowed TO lay brick or stone on Il found
alton that was constructed or built by
others but members of the Bricklayers'
and Masons' of the International Union.
How IS this tor 4 president? And
what is worse, this stone work was
erected by one OF the worst so-called
scab contractors who openly and def
antly held the union at bay, and who
continues to do business independent of
them. Nevertheless they accuse us
union contractors of trying TO break up
the rules OF their union, when we have
always hired none but union men and
paid union wages, and have had no
trouble on our part nor sought TO have
any. They also clam that they have
no disturbers of the peace IN their
midst, and that they spend their own
money, and do not seek TO empty their
treasury funds.
Do they forget two years ago of pay
..,s~ - = q.
rent members, $3.50 per week and his
saloon bills, for several weeks service
as a walking boss to prevent masons
fIom working on the Oriel cabinet fur
niture company's buildings. What are
YOU dong now but trying to- stop our
Jobs? The contractors OF this Exchange
have no trouble with their men, nor
do they seek 10 have any. But there is
limit TO what IS reasonable and right.
And III anticipation OF those evils which
we claim affected our mutual interests
as employers and employees, engaged
IN the same line OF business, we asked
them in communication of December
Is, 1890, to meet us and have quiet
and business-like talk over our busi-
ness interests, that in the end we would
be both benefited thereby, and have our
relationship go along pleasantly and
harmonious. We did meet and ad-
iourned, and were notified by the union
that they could not just then answer
our communication, but as soon as
their delegates would return from the
brlcklayers convention!they would meet
us and continue our first meeting.
This has never been done. Our COM
munieatIon of that date is not an
swered. nor is their promise thereto
fulfilled. III tins matter had been acted
upon as they agreed, and which two of
their members who visited us told us
should have been done, and that the
union acted IN an ungentlemanly man.
ner towards ne, as they had served on
said committee and did not know they
were discharged. They proclaimed to
us that n wrong had been done by them
to the contractors.
And there would have been no trou-
BE II this business had been attended
70 and finished IN gentlemanly and
business Ike manner. and which was
our reason for taking the matter up 30
early SO as to have an agreeable under
standing between both parties IN the
future.
We still are open for a neighborlv
talk and have our first communication
acted upon as per your note Of promise
dated January ?. 1921. Brothers. hfe
= snort 10 be used up IN such unbgsi-
Resslike methods. For the mason con-
tractors, BY the
VI AsoN Contractors COMMITTEE.