The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-11-17
MINERS

The stubborn refusal of the anthracite
union closes the door TO the establishment
Of the contract system between the opera
tors and the workmen. 1t is surprising
that the operators should persistently re-
fuse to adopt or even TO try a policy that
has worked we'll elsewhere, and that GER
tainly holds out a prospect of establishing
better relations with their employees. In
dividual contracts are probably impracti-
cable where men are employed by
the thousands, but a contract with the
union might answer the same purpose.
1t is true the union is not Incorporated,
and therefore could not be sued for breach
Of contract, but the bituminous miners
showed shat labor unions are getting to
have a high sense OF honor in regard to
observing contracts. The operators say,
'Wha would be the use of making a
contract with the union? 1t would violate
the contract. and we should have no rem
edy." How do they know without try
ing it?
In his statement to the commission Mr..
Mitchell said that at the present time
the United line Workers have contracts
with the bituminous operators of fourteen
States and districts, fixing the amount the
miners shall receive per ton. the amount
the various classes of labor shall re-
ceive per day, the number of hours which
shall constitute a days work, and the
methods and machinery for the adjust
ment of local grievances by joint con-
ference with the mine owners. He said
further:
The reports of the United States govern
ment upon strikes In the mining industry
show tina the number and duration of
strikes has been materially reduced each
year since the system of joint conference
and mutual agreement has been introduced.
Where the United Mine Workers of Amer
lea is recognized and contracted with II
assumes the responsibility of disciplining
its men bers. The trade agreement has
proved effective in restraining wOrkmen
from engaging in local or general strikes.
There have been no strikes of any mag
nitude ii any of the coal mining States In
which trade agreements exist. We seek
to establish the same method of adjusting
wage differences in the anthracite field.
1t is hot known in what other States
the b%itPminous operators have yearly
agreements with their employees, but they
c~ertainl. have in Pennsylvania, Ohio, In
diana and Illinois. The agreement In
force in these States is drawn up as care
fully as a contract and specifications could
be by a lawyer, and seems to leave no
opening for dispute. At a conference Of
operators and mine workers held in this
city in February last the agreement
adopted in 1900 was confirmed in tone and
effect from April /, 1902, till March 81. 1908.
The agreement contains twenty-nine num-
bered paragraphs, several of them with
subheads dealing with every practical de-
tail. Tie provisions for the settlement of
local grievances are framed with an evil
dent purpose to secure justice to both
sides. This agreement has been strictly
observed by the bituminous miners and it
has been the means of establishing very
satisfactory conditions in the bituminous
coal miriing districts. Until they have test
ed the plan the anthracite operators nave
no right to assert that it would not work
we'll ins that field, or that the miners
union would not observe any agreement
ii might make.