Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-07-11
CONTROVERSY With THE BREWERS
Letter Giving Views in Detail Of
the Employers.
SOME OTHER Blu SIN ES S


adoption of the terms of the contract
which was submitted to the employers OF
the members of the union, and which ' is
printed in The Star of yesterday.
A resolution adopted to the erect
that the Central Labor Union extends to |
Electrical Workers Union, No. &c, the
moral support of the body in their efforts
to secure contract with their employers
which will better their condition, and that |
the allied membership, through their re-
spective organizations, be requested to dis
courage the patronage of any firm or in |
dividual who will permit the employment |
of electrical workers other than members |
of union No. 20
The delegate from the Electrical Work |
ers' Union reported that the men were out |
of all the shops in the city, and that no |
work was being done in their line here. He |
further said that the former conditions of
the trade in Washington We're such that |
they We're forced to make the demand |
which resulted in a strike. He asserted
that the electrical workers have for long
time worked more hours and received less
pay here than the men of their craft in
any other large city in the country. He in
StanCed, among other places. New York,
where the minimum rate is $3.50 for eight
hours work. and Chicago. where it is So. 10
for the same number of hours.
Brewing Controversy.
a communication was read from repre-
sentatives of the Christian Heurich, Ma
tional Capital and Washington brewing
companies. explaining the position of those
corporations relative to the contract re-
Gently submitted to them by Brewery
Workers Union, No. rs. The letter was
as follows:
ION the 9Th instant the undersigned, as
representatives, respectively, of the Chris
tian Heurich Brewing Company, National
Capital Brewing Company and Washington
Brewery Company, were waited upon by
committee composed of Messrs. Samuel
Ingles and Milford Spohn of the Central
Labor Union, and Messrs. Henry Gutten-
| berg and August Getz of the Brewery
| Workers Union No. 11S
! Mr.. Spohn. who acted as spokesman of
the committee, explained that the COM
| mittee had called to see whether the local
| breweries above named intended to sign
! the contract which had been recently sub
| mitted to them by the Brewery Workers
| Union No. 11S
| This contract, among other things, pro-
| vides that employees in certain departments
/ of the breweries shall be- members of
| Union No. lis.
| There are two differences to be drawn
| from the language of the contract the first
| of which is that the employees in the re-
| spective departments covered by said con-
| tract must be members of said union, and
| the second is that the members of no other
| union shall can be employed in said de-
| partmentS.
| differences were correct and that such was
| the intent of the contract
| From the full and free discussion of the
| contract that took place this occasion,
| and as well from the discussions which
| have taken place at other meetings be-
| tween similar committees and the repre-
sentatives o. said companies, it is clear
| that there are no real differences between
| the employer and the employed respecting
either the wages of the employees or their
hours of employment; in fact, it is con-
coded by both sides that those matters are
both readily adjustable.
| Therefore the only points in contention
would seem to be, first, whether Union
No. 11s should be recognized and contract
ed with to the exclusion of any other SINH
| lar union which may now exist or may be
| hereafter organized and, second whether
those persons now employed in the re-
| sptCtive breWerieS who are ayerSe to join
ing any union shall be discharged as a
penalty for their refusal to 50 join.
| Shortly before the adjournment of the
meeting of the 5th instant above mentioned,
| the undersigned promised to put their
| views upon both questions in writing, and
1t is il the performance of this promise
and in order also that organized labor at
large and the public shall be enabled to
understand the matter that this communi-
cation is written.
1T can be stated as a general PROPOSE
ton without any fear of contradiction. and
many of the labor organizations of this
District will attest the truth thereof that
in the building operations of said COM
} panies and of the persons composing them
In which vast sums of money have beer
expended, preference has always beer
given TO union labor; in fact, for many
| years, other kind of labor has beer
| knowingly employed.
From this fact alone, if from no other
. | the friendly feeling of said companies fol
! | organized labor is manifest
D Two Organizations.
"a great part of the trouble between en-
| ployer and employed in the District seems
to be due to the fact that there are in ex
. | stence two organizations, both claiming t.
f be representative central labor organfza
: tions-one. the Central Labor Union, whc
e is affiliated with the American Federation
t of Labor, and the other, District Assembl
r No. G6, Knights of Labor, which is afiliat
+ ed with the General Assembly of tn
: | knights of Labor.
= These bodies, instead of uniting for tn
+ | common good of the persons and organiZa
= | lions respectively connected with them al
though both claim to have as their objeC
the betterment of labor conditions, are to
frequently engaged in fighting each othel
4. and not infrequently does one use an EN-
II | ployer of labor as a means of injuring tn
II other.
5. Each of these bodies. 1t is said, has
e, number of local organizations representa-
lie a considerable number of persons connecte
L. with 1t, and both claim among their organ
iZatiOns a union of brewery workers, a
though each severally denies the existenc
&c other.
:, We are disinclined to judge of the trut
H. or falsity of these claims and denials, an
g, as We are under contract with both o
e CARNATIONS not to discriminate again
" either in he employment of labor
vs. not see how we can enter into any contra
-, which provides for the exclusive recogn
- ton of one of the brewers unions. and mu
+0 | consequently decline to sign any contra
~ unless it provides for the recognition
| both unions alike
This disposes of the first question in co
tention between said committee and sd
companies, and as good faith and fair dea
IN ing prevent doing otherwise il is o.
final answer in the matter.
Free to Organize.
LAS TO the second point in controvers
=, we have to say that said companies ha
-, never denied the right of their employees
-, organize.
oy They are free TO do SO if they wish, a
the companies are entirely willing. a
have Always been, that they should do
| hut thew will not force or coerce any pt