The labor world., 1898-03-12
THE WORKERS SIDE.
Is Labor's Difficulty With the
Acme Laundry
Just?
Who is in the Right ? ?-Read
LabOr's Side of the
Controversy.

which reads, 'Patronize the Acme
laundry because it is boycotted," sig
nifies an open challenge for bitter war
fare.
Mr. Armstead, rather than seek an
amicable adjustment of the trouble, il
determined to fight this unpleasant
battle to finish. Labor does not wish
to force the fight. It is not pleasant
thing to do. The boycott is not a
friend maker for the labor unions, but
it is their weapon of defense. There
fore they are compelled to use it tC
their best advantage. Yet it is not Sc
bad as it is represented. It is merely a
request to labor unionists and their
friends to refuse to patronize a firm
until it operates under fair conditions
Some of the business organizations
resort to severer measures than the
boycott. Even the faundryowners'
association, of which Mr.. Armstead is a
member, has system of boycott far
more dangerous to the WELL being of the
community than labor's boycott. They
have rule in their association that if
any laundry driver is discharged or
quits his position he shall not be given
employment by any other member for
a period of thirty days. This is moth
ing less than boycott in it's worst form.
Mr.. Armstead does not believe in
labor organizations because, he says,
"they endeavor to run PERSONS bust
ness" Let us see the consistency of
his position.
The union endeavors, through con-
certed action. to secure living wage
for each of it's members. Should they
tell Mr.. Armstead that they will not
work for him unless he pays to his en-
ployes a certain wage, he maintains
that they are trying to run his business,
just because they name a price for
their only commodity, viz: their labor
power.
But Mr. ~Armstead's association says
to each, of it's members, "You
shall charge not less than a certain
price for cleaning certain laundry; then
should member of their association
attempt to reduce the cost of laundry
this same employers union Immediately
Institutes boycott to drive him out Of
business, as was the case with the
Klondyke laundry.
Where is the consistency of his posi-
ton when rightly considered? Mr..
has issued a circular giving
his reason for discharging Miss Dun
leavy. He claims, she was discharged
on account of dull trade and the very
fact that he had employed no one in her
place indicates that such was the case
The union maintains that the trouble
is not their choice, but they have been
forced into it by the aggressiveness ofMr.
who has ever been opposed to
their union and who has at all times
been ready to cross s-swords with them.
Mr.. Armstead also says that the fight
is caused from the unpleasantness ex-
isting between he and the president of
the laundry workers union, and that it
is purely personal matter. The presi-
dent of the union has no power what
ever in the matter, not even vote.
The decision reached by the union was
given fair hearing in the union, and no
one individual is responsible.
Mr.. Armstead maintains that he
knew nothing about Miss Dunleavy's
position on a committee to adjust
wages. He acknowledged last summer
to committee from the Trades AS
sembly that he knew everything that
was transacted in the union, and the
laundry workers have proof that there
is Benedict Arnold in their midst who
has betrayed their workings to Mr..
Armstead.
The union has issued circular which
presents an affidavit by Miss Dunleavy,
in which she states that Mr.. Armstead
informed her that she would have to
quit because she had been asking for
scale of wages before the union.