Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1892-07-14
ANSWERING FRIck.
A Statement From the Advisory Hoard Of
the Homestead Workmen statement Of
the Carnegie Company Denied.

A Statement From the Advisory Hoard Of
the Homestead Workmen statement Of
the Carnegie Company Denied.
HOMESTEAD, Pa, July i2.-The fol-
lowing statement issued by the adyis-
ory committee Of the worsmen explains
the position OF the men:
Homestead Employees Answer 70 the Carnegie
Company;
The differences existing between the Carne.
vie company and their employees nt Homestead
hnVe drawn from H. G. Frick q statement Of
the points IN dispute which makes necessary q
reply in order that wrong impressions Of the
conditions mny not be received by the public
IL Is asserted that the employees combined
with others Of their trade forming the Anal
gamated association, with absolute control over
the Homestead works This charge can only be
supported 10 tho satisfaction OF those who deny
the right OF the employees to enter objection 10
| any conditions offered by the employers The
worgngmen at Homestead or any other Of tho
hundreds Of mills organized into the Amalga-
/ mated association have no desire 20 dictate the
wages they shall receive, but they see no reason
why they should not exercise the privilege OF
| engaging with their employer IN the contro-
versy through which the rate Of compensation
for their labor is liked
The workmen are now, as they always have
been prepared 10 meet the representatives Of
the company and discuss the provisions con
tnined in the scale submitted by them II the
I
! about q settlement IL cannot be said that this
i was The fault Of the workingmen
The scale under which the men AT Homestead
| were working was arranged In July of 1850
/ The rate OF wages fixed according to the
| selling price Of AKA 3esscmer steel bilets the
wages advancing and declining with the selling
| price Of the articles. but 1t was provided the
minimum should be 825. Complaint is made
that no minimum should have boon insisted
upon II Is the experience Of the iron and
steel workers that some prevention is neccs-
sary 10 protect themselves from being reduced
To an extremely low rate OF pay By the accept
ancc by manufacturers Of scales below current
rates as the workingmen do not sell the prod
uct there must be point where a reduction ia
wages bg reason OF low figure scales shall cease.
1t IS alleged that labor organizations are injuri-
ious alike 10 the toilcrs and those by whom they
are employed, In substantiation Of which II Is
cited by the arm that there IS no organization
among their employees al 3raddock nor Duquesne
steel works. that the men there are satisfied,
that they get good wages and that no strike
has occurred since the institution OF that ar
rangcmeut.
II may BE- said that the satisfaction Of which
Mr. Frick speaks existing nt the above
works Is forced rather than voluntary, as may
be proved By the many efforts Of the men ia
these mills 10 organize themselves in seeresy
knowledge OF such intentions coming TO the
ears Of the company would be and was followed
by discharge. The wages enjoyed by the men
az BraddocS and Duquesno are the direct result
Of the rate OF compensation sustained by tho
organized iron and steel workers While they
are not organized 10 these mills the rate of pay
for the class OF work done by them fixed by
their organized fellow tradcsmcn determines
tho pay that commands their services.
IL Is the Gus tom OF the employers Of non-union
men ia the iron and steel trade 20 pay the rates
provided by the Amalgamated scale In order 20
secure the services OF men % that trade IT is
found, however TO bc invariably the case that
with these employers, while they pay the rates
provided by the Amalgamated association, the
men arp required 10 accept conditions which
are tantamount TO reduced rate, although not
appearing on the face. We have reason TO be-
hCye that The non-union plants OF Braddocl1 and
Dcquesne can h5 proved TO be no exception to
this rule The Introduction OF machinery 10
which reference is made By the company has dis
placed men that were necessary before the In
PRODUCTION Of such machinery, and IN this man
ucr rCpays the cost Of the investment The
output Of "A mill IS always considered when ar
ranging scales and II Increase Of output with
on increase Of labor Is brought about by im
provcmcnt there Is every opportunity offered
by the worllmcn to arrive through conference
at an equitable rate; but when tho employer
refuses 70 engage In discussion with the enr
p'oye on the matter oil hope Of lDst tile
An attempt Is made to lead the public into
the belief that the number OF men affected by
the reduction Is few Here again IL becomes
necessary to impress on the public mind the
fact there are three distinct propositions con
tanned in the dispute namely A reduction ia
the minimum another reduction So the proper
tomato rate % pay tthus making q double re-
uucuonl and that scale terminate December
81, lsgi instead OF June 30. lsQL 1t
must be understood that while all OF
these propositions DO not affect the
whole Of the Homestead worllmcn. few %
The $500 employees OF that place escape
without being affected by one or moro Of its
provisions " hat docs not affect the one does
affect the other and II might be said that ~
stead OF the eonpany's proposal altering the
condition OF employment Of 3e5, the change Is
general and the whole are involved 1t is
stated by tho company with much force that
Is not their desire to reduce their workmcn be-
low others The cost Of production 10 the
Carnegie company AZ Homestead Is decidedly
Ia favor OF the company compared with mills
II that character. II can now be- shown that
they canaot establish a complaint IN that direc-
lion
In arranging scales Of wages 10 govern iron
and steel workers, there are innumornhle THINGS
which must receive attention II justice must
prevail The intricacics referred 20 are such
as TO render liable erroneous views 20 Doe drawn
1y those not familiar with the trade from their
discussion in the public press, There can bee no
egitimate reason why the Carucgie company
should deny 10 their Homestead worSmcn "a
conference whore the things of which they com
plain could be au1lyEcd and. IL found uuiust,
made right Tho mon make 40 further PROPOSE
ion than this for the simple reason that none
aircr is possible II argument and honest
easoniug were substituted for the reserve and
oldness OF manner as seen IN the companys
tutudo there can be rcasoa 70 expect an end
4 this state OF affairs. Docs IL nots seem strunga
hat The Carnegie company looks with disirust
ipou the organization OF fits Homestead en-
loycs while at several II its large mills they
ave for several years encouraged the orgauiza-
ion 90 the mcn and at his moment are getting
long satisfactorily toTctaers
Surely IL will not bc charrco that the mon of
homestead arr less Intelligent or less entitled
o those rights which are the principles OF or
auizcd labor, and which lrc iuscprable from
heir citiz uship. There are none who regret
he lamcutahle occurrences OF the past few
avs more Than those whom the Carnegie com.
any charges with having been instrumental in
ringing them about We are willing 90 allow
he public to judge after the evidence is all Ia
neither these charges are true We feel that
he erroneous statements given ont relative 20
ur conduct viii bc removed BY impartial in-
in due timo Tult then We prefer
b forget our recent sad experience
SIOUX Clty-Street car Men.