The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-10-25
-
| w
:s9SS]

right have you and your men to say to the
mployer what men he is to employ
I'VE have no right" he replied promptly.
We don't do tt
We'll 1t amounts 10 the same thing. What
light have twenty union men working in
shop with three or four nOnunion men to say
20 the employer that these men must be dis
charged?"
I'VE have no right" he replied again.
promptly, I'VE don't say that
mo, you don't say 1t in so many words,
tut 1t amounts to that If the employer does
not discharge the men, the union men walk
out, and sooner or later the employer is
forced 10 call in all union men or have his
business crippled
RIGHT TO WALK OUT.
I'VE have a perfect right to walk out,
haven't We? If you don't like your job.
haven't you right to quit?''
Certainly. but / don't tell my employer
that he has got TO change those conditions"
Because you know it wouldn't do any
good. If everybody in your place of business
didn't like something about the place and
petition was got UP to have that something
changed you bet you would sign the petit
ton, because you would know that petition
might have some force with the employer"
Eyes, but with a nonunion workman, or a
.scab.' as you call him, it's different. Sup
pose he can't get into union-it's not his
fault that he lie 'scab,' and there's injus-
tice somewhere
But he can get into the union. That's the
very thing we are working for We have
asked him TO come into the union and nc
refuses, so we try some other means to
get him in
There have been cases where men were
kept out Of unions for spite or prejudice"
Not more than three four in the coun-
try. On the other hand. look at the spite
work that is done in the positions of ordi-
nary life
Suppose he hasn't got the money to join
a union and pay the dues?'
when he joins the union his wages are
higher and therefore. he has the money"
SWEATING" EMPLOYERS.
"well, right there you are sweating the
employer
mot at ALL If a man refuses to work FOR
less than 81 day he compels the employer
to pay that sum or do without his services.
If the employer refuses to pay more than
$50 day, the workman is compelled to
work for that wage or go without the job
So they argued back and forth, criss-cross
and round about until shadows began to
creep into the office and lights appear along
the streets. Then the questioner answered
the 80 long" OF the labor leader and left,
feeling that he had started for somewhere
and arrived at nowhere in his argument.
The question thus raised is one of the
foremost which the union man has to fight.
If he has refused to work with a nonunion
man, the public heaps its criticism upon him
and he has to take it. Union leaders claim
that, from legal point of view. trade unions
or any other persons have perfect right to
refuse to work with this employer or that,
whether for reasons good or bad. They say
that no man should be deprived Of the right
to earn his living at his trade by body OF
men, but cases occur in every day labor
where the wage-earner may refuse to work
with a man because he is a colored man,
Catholic or an atheist. The dictum Of the
union stipulates that, a condition, the
union men shall not be obliged TO work with
men who are obnoxious to them, and all
nonunion men are. If the union is strong, the
dictum amounts to compulsion which is
considered a legal right of workmen to say
upon what terms he is willing to sell his la
bor The employer has full liberty to reject
or fulfill those conditions, says the union
man. The unionist does not say to the en-
ployer that he must not hire that man, but
he saws If he hires the man he cannot hire
him.
RIGHT TO MODEST.
In answer to the charge of molesting and
injuring nonunion men, labor leaders say
that the unionist has no right to do this and
that it is not done. In such instances where
union men walk out and refuse TO work with
nonunion men and place the employer on the
unfair list, it is the employer who suffers.
Once on the unfair list he is boycotted by
unionism In general, and no matter how far
away his goods may be sold, whether in
New York or San Francisco. word is passed
along the line that he is on the unfair list.
and his products are Stunned by unionists.
But there is no illegal blow struck here.
claims the labor leader He is allowed to
run his ''scab" shop and if his business does
not succeed then he is free TO pay higher
prices for union labor and do more business.
1t is something like trying to do skilled
labor with unskiled labor, to run factory
with nonunion workmen when there is
union in the community. When it is claimed
that these methods amount 10 a monopoly
a
work with nonunion men and that it is
equal to force, the labor advocate claims
that it is a mistake and maintains that to
refuse to work with nonunion labor is no
more of compulsion than for life insur-
ance company to refuse certain risks, or
for a citizens league to boycott a citizen or
a church to refuse membership to certain
class.
A PERSECUTION.
1t is sometimes charged by the unionists
that the employers attempt to make the re-
fusal of the trade unionists to work with
the nonunionist appear as a persecution of
prejudices. The unions allow a man to be-
lieve as he cares to, as the state gives him
IL he wants to join, so that the unionist's
definition of a nonunion workman is a man
who refuses or fails TO belong to union
when a union exists in his community.
Another claim Of the unionists is, that the
agitation for the closed shop is being met
with so much remonstrance because 1t is
new plea At the time of the initial move
ment for the eight-hour working day, said
one labor leader, the same circumstances
were raised, as people took it for granted
that the unions were moving to tighten
their grip society. But to-day, he con-
tinued. the whole world sees the justice of
that movement and the law has Endorsed 1t
in many States. The justice of the closed