Omaha daily bee., 1903-05-17

ness men OF Omaha and their employees at
present is the recognition OF the union.
Several other matters have been injected
into the controversy chiefly for the pur-
pose Of Jogging the real issue, but nothing
can obscure in the unprejudiced mind the
fact that It is the existence Of the trades
union that is aimed at. In their statements
to the public the business men have laid
great stress on three points, insisting that
they contain the meat of the situation.
These points are the recognition Of the
union, the sympathy strike and the boy
colt. / will endeavor to consider these
three in order Of their Importance, first
giving my attention to the one on which
the others hang.
In the public statement Of their side of
the controversy the business men defna.
recognition of the union as turning over
their business to the union" Submitting
to the dictates of their employees" allow
ing their affairs to be managed by walking
delegates" and similar assertions, each and
several of which is unfounded either in fact
or logic. All that the trades unions of
Omaha or any other community in which
such organizations can be found ask of
their employers is recognition as respon-
sible bodies BY recognition I mean that
the employers treat with their employees as
~ tAS dAhgAAt AaNucI IMAM as III
dividuals; that all other things being
equal, they give preference to union men in
engaging new employees and that they abide
by their contracts, entered into with the
unions.
This may strike one not thoroughly con-
versant with all the elements of the situa-
ton as fully proving the employers case
as regards the charge that the unions un-
dertake to dictate who shall or who shall
not be employed. 1t is worthy of study,
and believe its reasonableness will be
readily apparent to anyone who will give it
careful examination.
In the first place, the union does not ask
an employer to take into his service any
man who is not satisfactory In every re-
spect; no union has ever insisted on an en-
ployer retaining in his employment a man
who is incompetent insubordinate or even
personally distasteful. 1t is only required
that in dismissing an employe 1t be for good
reason, and not for a refusal to violate a
rule OF the union or a clause of the con-
tract under which he is working. In MAX
ing a contract with the union the employer
Is allowed to scrutinize the union rules and
each and all are subject to debate and must
be mutually agreed upon. He is therefore
FAMILIAR with all that is expected of him
and knows also what to expect from his
employees.
1t will not be coptended by any
sane man that this condition i'm
poses a hardship of any sort on either
side. The sole object of the union in
making this contract is to secure for its
members permanence of employment under
conditions that are as fair and equitable
as possible for both sides. 1t is intended
10 protect as far as possible the employe
unjust exactions of the employer condi-
tions which experience has taught the
worker he must meet. No fair-minded en-
ployer can possibly object to this He is
asked merely to enter voluntarily into a
binding contract and to observe its pro-
visions and stipulations during the time of
Its existence In return, he is assured of
being amply supplied with competent and
satisfactory help during the life of the con-
| tract.
Will not insult the, intelligence of your
readers by entering into discussion of the
right of men following any particular craft
or calling to associate themselves together
for the purposes of a trades union. This
right is conceded by the business men with
out debate. In meeting It they insist with
vehemence that hardly seems warranted
by the facts of the right OF the nonunion
man to secure employment at his particu-
! lar vocation. This is a right conceded by
the labor unions without debate. The aver
age labor union has had more experience
with the nonunion man than the employers
can ever hope to have, unless they may
succeed in carrying out their implied inten-
tion of wiping out of existence every YES
| tige of a trades union; and even in that
event 1t is doubtful IL they would be able
! to parallel the experience of the trades
unions in this respect for 1t is certain that
| a cause so firmly founded in right and JUS
| tice as that of organized labor would not
| long remain in ruins, but would soon be
| found again lighting. II not nourishing
| Let me here define briefly and plainly the
attitude of the union man toward the nom
| union man. In each instance the employer
is given his choice of employing either; the
nonunion man has never objected to work.
ing alongside of the union man. but the
union man never has been and never will
be content to work alongside the nonunion
man. Therefore. II the employer wishes to
employ union men. he must do so ex-
clusively, or as nearly exclusively as the
exigencies of his business will permit at
all times and under all circumstances CIV
ing preference 10 union men; or II he
elects. he may employ nonunion men ex-
clusively.
For this. too, there is reason. No one in
any degree familiar with Industrial condi-
tions and the history of the labor move
ment will undertake to contradict the
statement that the improved conditions OF
employment of labor in nearly II not all
respects is due TO the existence OF the labor
/