Waterbury Democrat., 1902-04-30
THE SHORTER WORK DAY.
To the Editor of the Democrat: We have waited. Honey. waited long
 fnr. rnrI t Gnnn ean..

To the Editor of the Democrat:
 We have waited. Honey. waited long
 for you."-Coon song.
 One year ago the machinists of this city appealed to their employers for a shorter work day. The machinists at that time had formed a trade union. believing that collectively they might convince their employers that it was not a few disgruntled ones, but the vast majority who were dissatisfied with the long work day. The men ap- pointed one of the officers of their un- ion to conduct their business in con- nection With that movement, at which the employers made great outcry--- he was called an outside agitator, and It was said he was disturbing rhe good relations that existed between employ CT and employe. During the agitation the men were frequently told that the employers would always be pleased to meet their Workmen, talk over griev- ances, and, if possible, rectify any reasonable cause of complaint The president of the Scovill company stat ed to committee who waited upon nm last year in reference to the shorter work day movement, that lie knew the shorter work day had got To come. He surely could not have meant that we would have to wait until the millennium ere that event took place. Wehave waited long enough for that good time to have arrived. Why should we be the only Engllsll speaking people under the sun work ing long hours? Some employers may say that to concede our request for the shorter work day would retard progress. It would simply not be true; we are just as much interested as the employers in the continued pro- gross of the trade, and We believe that such progress is compatible with short CT hours of labor. Since the worknen were defeated, twelve months ago. by | the employers union (the Metal Trades association, there has meyer been one concession made. Do you think the men went back contented? I know they did not: they went back sullen and discontented. It could not be other wise. Such are the conditions to-day. If the employers do not like strikes and trades unions, how is it they make no effort to remove the cause that l brings them into existence? Your pau- per cousins. as they are sometimes called in the United Kingdom, have been in the enjoyment of the nine hour day for the past thirty-two years. To- day many are only working eight hours per day, with higher wages than they ever had under long hours. It will be l little use to the employers trotting out the old bogey that trades unions have driven British trade to the bow-wows. Trades unions in the United Kingdom to-day are stronger in numbers and ill finances than ever they were known to be, which could not be the case if trade is in the condition that many employers on this side of the Atlantic are so any ious to make out. If Great Britain is | behind the times it is not the trade unionists' fault. It may be that much
 of the machinery is out of datc. The workmen do not buy the machinery so 1 it must be the employers fault. If the employers choose to argue this ques- ton let them leave nationalitiaS out of the argument; it is only prejudice. do not think any of my fellow work
 men have had college education, CT even had the opportunity 10 learn college yell; still we will endeavor to Fdefend the shorter work day 10 the best of our ability. If as l have already quoted an authority who says the shorter work day has got to come, then | i'll all fairness let the employers say how and when. II. M.