Waterbury Democrat., 1901-05-10
CLOCK WORKERS
Went Out in a Body This Fore-
 noon.
sTRI IKE IS ONE OF SYMPATHY.


 Rid of Union Men Great Excitement
 Caused By the Strike.
 The clash between employer and eni-
 ploye which has been pending for
 some time, took place in the factory
 of the Waterbury clock factory on North Elm street this forenoon at 10
 o'clock 1t has nothing to do with the pending question of nine hour work day which will be asked of the employ CT on the 20th of this month, though
 when it was first reported that strike was on everybody supposed it was the forerunner of the short work day and the workmen on strike had taken time by the forelock
 The strike may be called q symptlly strike, for the question of reinstatlDg two union WOrkmen who were dis- charged last week is the nail on which the question hangs. The strikers are machinists and they number about fifty. Among them are many nom union men.
 The two men who were discharged last week were discharged on the ground of negligenve, according to Su- perintendent Larkins, and they there by violated rule of the factory The act of alleged negligence was that they were found speaking to some other e1n- ployes of the company during work ing hours. s The men, at least one of them, felt
 he was not fairly dealt with, and he
 had consultation with Irving Chase, secretary of the Clock Go. and with
 MT Larkins, the superintendent They. according to his own story told q re- I porter of this paper, convinced him | that he had violated the rules of the ct0 l ploye and consequently he had mo kick coming, to use his own words 1 It is the opinion of the men, how l ever, that the two men referred to l were discharged solely because they | were members of the union and ac- cordingly the matter was brought to the attention of the state officials of | the union. This brought Charles Dona- l hue of Derby, state organizer of the l union, to this city, and after con- I ference with the employees of the ma | chinists' room he took the same view I of the situation as the men did The
 result was three conferences between MT Donahue and Mir Larlxins. Mfr I Donahue made the following staten el1t l this forenoon:
 s'The officials of this concern (tlaa' | Clock Co) have been getting rid z.cx
 union men on systehaat ic plasa, l9z 4 l leging incompetence or llegligence.
 1.-TWO union men were discharged lasf
 week. The men say they were dis 1 charged for certain reasons. MT Lar.
 ki1fs has said they were not dischargea for any reason but negligence Such l is the pith of tile stories of both sides | to this question: I saw AIr Larkiils | three times. 1 suggested a meeting. I between him and, the discharged men. l and that each side would then tell it's | story in the presence of the other. and I if the facts were as he said the men would apologize for any Inconvenience the firm was put to on account of the
 cause of the dispute. MT Larkins re-
 fused to submit to this proposal The
 next time saw him suggested that we all talk the matter over and see 1 He said the men loafed and thereby l violated a rule of the company. I asked him to state his case before q
 scommittee of three, one member of I which was to be chosen by both sides l to the dispute and the chosen men to
 select third, and their decision to be
 final. He also refused to listen tos this. Il did not know of anything fair l CT to propose.
 MT Larkins has shown no disposi- l ton to deal fairly with the men. He | 1 in the union, but his actions do not
 support that statement. He has even | admitted that one of the men who
 were discharged was a first class work man and had been ill the companys s
 employ for seven years. The men
 themselves say they were faithful and honest employees and were at least on | titled to square deal. .. Our claim concisely is this: The men claim they were not discharged lafor negligence of their work and Mir l Larkins says they were justly dis. t charged and the interests of the conn pany demanded their discharge, and
 he absolutely refused to arbitrate the l matter. 1 wish also to state this step ] taken by the machinists employed by l the Waterbury Clock Go has the en- l dorsement of the head officials Of the International Association Of Mae1liD | ists. I saw Efr Larkins this morning and told him that the statements made by the discharged men were Supported l by statements made by their fellow employees. I told him what the conse- quences would be if an agreement was not arrived at or some effort made to
 settle matters. so that he cannot say
 he was taken by surprise. He had no I suggestion to make and so the men were called out. l should have said that when the discharge of the two
 men was first made known to head l quarters a neutral man was sent on
 here to investigate, and he reported. after a thorough examination into the
 conditions which brought about this l situation. to-day, that the cause given l by the officials Of the company for the l discharge of the men was not the real l cause.
 l We do not want to hurt the dignity l of the officials of any manufacturing
 concern; we do not want to interfere with them at all only so far as they 1 interfere with our rights. At the l clock factory they say there is rule
 there which guarantees every employe l the right of an appeal If he thinks he 1 has good grounds for complaint, but. l in this case we do not think that rule held good. f will say again that We
 are very sorry for this, but we arc bound to protect ourselves when we have been unfairly dealt With'' Mir Chase, the secretary of - con- pany, referred the reporter tG kar- kins. Afr Larkins when see discharged men were let
 l they violated n rule of tl
 could not say when Il
 nents of the factory