The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-12-20
SOME WORDS ABOUT TRADES
UNIONS.

SEATTLE, Dec Is, 1891.
To THE EDITOR: Nv attention has been called
TO an editorial in Yesterday mornings Iessgrapa
wherein that paper, speaking OF the reeen:
trouble between the engineers and captains
unions, gloa.ingiy tskes occasion ID STAB all
trades unions in the back, aud a. is usual Win
al who attempt u ire q subjects oil when they
nave not the least knowledge, commits the bun
der of assuming that things exist which as
matter OF fact do no: exis..
We are told without an iota OF evidence that
''the tendency of the labor unions has been of
late years, steadily more and more. 70 put the
employers a. their mercy. Good character, good
habits, industry AMI csnsbility are not required
of those who seek membership. The incapable
person ana the lOafer are gathered in, and oc-
cuTy the same position as the best man IN the
union; and. on the transparent pretense that his
membership guarantees his capacity, the unde-
srable workman is forced on the employer, who
Is allowed no choice between good, bad aud in
different"
AS matter of fact every trade union IN tho
United states before initiating an applicant re-
ters his application TO a committee, with in-
structiOns TO inquire into the applicants me-
ehanical ability and his good moral standing.
II the Telegraph is inclined 10 convince itself of
the utter trnthlessness of its statement then let
II look Tor evidence in its own composing room
Every union printer that show. up in that
office asking Tor employment land their name is
legion) Is capable Of doing days work in the
fullest sense OF that term. Certainly 90 not
claim that all the men holding cases there are
equally competent Such state is not
in the nature of things possible. some men
are better than Others, and the unions do not
set maximum price but a minimum price.
They protect the employer. They assure him
OF average CON petent men at a minimum
price, and ii the employer chooses to employ
the very b So class OF help, there is 70 union
law nv k10vtadpa fornidd{up him IN 0frar
extra indueement to the best man, and get him
and keep him.
This theosv about unions forcing an employer
to hire incompetent men, has been so very often
exploded that one would think that self
respecting newspaper would shame itself to re-
peat it.
Again, the Telegraph takes the occasion TO de.
liver Itself OF its opinion about the pending
difficulty between the engineers aud captains,
and naturally comes To the conclusion that the
engineers are in the wrong. Certainly, are they
no. a labor union, and, consequently, bound to
be wrong? and the captains are in the right be-
cause they are snti-lnbor union and bound to be
right Now. let us look at the case in the light
that the Telegraph furnishes in the same
editorial. difficulty exists between engineers
and Captains. The local board tried the case
and gave its decision. The engineers are dis
satisfied with il. They claim the trial was not
impartial. They wish TO appeal. They have
perfect rIEAl 10 90 tlat. nave they not,
Mr. telegraph Pending anEappeal they ask for
what Is known in law as q stltu quo, namely,
until they hear from the appellate court, Cap
taiu McAipins should remain idle as well as
Engineer Smith. Can any fair-ninded man see
anything wrong in the position the engineers
took? In fact, is il not usual in all pending
cases that both parties concerned should suffer
equally? Is there anything wrong there, Mr..
telegraph
Certainly, the captains union had a perfect
right 10 ask the engineers union to file bond
that in the decision of the local board is
sustained they will pay the captain for his lost
time from the expiration OF his thirty days
penalty to the moment when the open court
renders its final decision, but, further than that.
they could not 60. To force union engineers 10
work with q captain who, according to their
claim, has wronged them, and whose local trial
is 70 them suspicious of undue influence, is GER
tainly wrong The fact that man belongs to a
labor union does no. deprive him Of his consti-
tutional right OF appeal. As a matter of fact, in
my opinion, this is merely a combination of
owners and captains to crush a labor union.
am not at all astoInshed al finding the Tsle-
graph on the side OF monopoly and against
trades unions, but whs. | protest against is its
deception. would have more respect for the
Telegraph If, like the Portland OregonidB or some
other papers, il would openly state that it has
no sympathy with the trades unions. One
could then respect it for its boldness, but
what opinion can one have of paper that
with one hand pats the workiugmen on
the back, thinks him and his union
a very useful affair in civilization, and with the
other stabs him n the same back, and condemns
every act Of his for other reason than that he
has the afirontery TO belong 10 trade union.
hat such policy might be necessary for pol