The daily morning journal and courier., 1902-01-02

l Laborors.
 London, Dec. 20.
 "A portion of the British Press. witt
 The Times at it's head, has started z
 campaign of calumny against the Brit
 ish workman. It is only when that same
 workman deserts his craft and dons
 martial uniform that he can hope tc
 ind favor in their sight, In civil life
 bricklayers, carpenters, masons and la
 borers are vile shirkers of work, whose
 sole study is how best to neglect their duty. On the war path these same men
 are transformed into heroes, whose de- | votion to duty none dare ques tion. ] This quotation is the opening para ! graph of a letter from a British work
 man which appeared recently in the
 Daily News. In striking way it calls attention to the current contro-
 versy in regard to Trade Unionism, | The point in immediate dispute is, whether Trade Unions have or have not | counselled their members to limit out put, and thus make room for more
 hands by doing their days work on what is called the 'go-easy," principle.
 But there is also in issue the broader
 question, whether the policy of Trade
 Unionism in England is not putting this country at a ruinous disadvantage in
 the competition it meets from such countries as Germany and the United States.
 To support the charge of shirking, the case of bricklayers is cited. Twenty years ago, says the Times" the brick layer would put down his 1000 bricks q day when on ordinary work, and on some kinds of work would even lay 1,200 day, whereas the unwrtten law now in force declares that a briclllayer must go easy and not lay, on ordin- ary work, more than 400 bricks a day. Here is a specific alleg tion that it has been frankly met. The General Secre- tary of the Operative Bricklayers' So- ciety is John Batchelor. Interviewed on a recent date this gentleman denied that there was any unwritten law re- strcting men in their output of work, and characterized as "ridiculously un- true the statement that there had been drop on ordinary work from thou sand bricks day to four hundred
 On similar work. quality for quality. men lay as many bricks o-day he de- clared, as they did twenty years ago. He explained. however, that what was known as ordinary work at that time. and what is now called by that name, are really two different classes of work. In modern buildings there is much more architectural detail, and, of course, this greater ornamentation is secured at the expense of speed Then, too, over seers are much more stringent now invariably to be done over again and this also has told agianst speed. With these qualifications it was insisted by MT Batchelor that the men of his Union put out as much work to- day as they ever did, and as to the Union con- niving at loafing and laziness, that, he said was a shameless fabrication
 Upon the point that Unions are active parties in limiting output the writer in the Times" seemed at first to have made out good case, for he quoted, as though it were of recent date and still operative, the following rule. Rule 5.- You are strictly cautioned not to out step good rules by doing double the work you are required, and causing others to do the same in order to gain l smile from your master. Such fool | hardy and deceitful actions leave a great number of good members out of l employment the year round Certain in- liTiduals have been guilty who will be expelled if they do not refrain"
 This, on its face. looked conclusive. | put investigation has shown that this |
 
 from any of the great Trade | Unions of to-day, has been dug up out If the distant past. It was altogether a ocal requirement., and is SO muoh pack number that the Union formulat- | ng it has been thirty years defunct No , 'ause is helped by unfairness, and least { likely of all is this attack of capital lpon labor to be helped by such means, 'wing to the very general conviction hat labor in England has never yet ,een paid fair remuneration.
 4 leading representative of the labor interests of Great Britain is w. C. 'teadman, who is also a member of the london County Council. and who, the ! ther day. expressed the opinion before hat body that England was approach ng an industrial crisis end that the ob- ect of the present attack by the Times and other papers Was to screen apitalsts. who were the real cause of his threatened disaster, and throw the lame for it upon Trade TTnionism. Highly indignant also are such stauncb nd wel-poised labour leaders as Ben 'illet Tom Mann and John Burns, M } These are representatives of what is allcd the New Unionism" which is ecidedly the prevailing type at the resent, and how far these are from ny complicity in the alleged Ego easy olicy, is best shown by an exhortation hey addressed a few years ago to the london lockers If our members" hey said. do not behave as honest len should we must speak out plainly. t' nd in a number of instances it has { cen the case that our members have | ct worked properly, thus weakening | ( ne hands of the Executive when en- 1 aged in negotiation with employers of l lbor Let us face the position in q dig ( flied way and let it be known that ( in our Union demands of ( 1e members fair work for fair pay" f It thus remains to be proved that the { lt-put of British labor has been re- Z .ricted by any formal requirement of rade Unionism or even with it's con q ivance, But there is another way in r hich it is unquestionably restricted. i, nd that is by the constitutional disin- e ina tion of the British workman to + ret a huet1a m hin, ' rT,orc ,.,o-. l.. | v