The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1904-02-07
soME rYprcAL ExAMpIRs.

rance of N!s We admit that there may De
leases where employees are so badly treat
ed or so palpably underpaid that a strike
seems the only remedy, but admitting this
to be true, what sense is there in MEM
bers of other trades who belong to unions
striking from sympathy? None except
the original strikers may have any cause
Of complaint but they all quit work be-
cause some have done II. One Of the re-
suits, and counter. results of such action
is thus told by The Chicago Chronicles:
! -Four months ago the plumbers of Pitts
arg struck for raise OF wages from $4.oo
/ to IS per day. Soon afterward the mem.
1-bers Of the Building Trades Council; 2sVo
| men in all went on a sympathy STRIKE
Naturally and justly angered by this &C.
1 retaliation. took the unjust and indefensi-
building operations in P1ttsburg. and
throwing 10000 more men out OF work.
The strike and lockout have Just been
declared of. They end in victory Tor
the employers. who agree TO let the union
men RETURN to. work. in consideration OF
the open shop. AS "a result of the strike
| of a handful of plumbers the workingmeu
| of Pittsburg have lost i$750,0o0 In wages.
the master builders have lost A,000,00e In
| SIS 900 in building operations have been
lSuspended-. And, of course, these figures
give no idea OF the 1osses indirectly sus-
| tained by people Of every class in the city
by merchants whose sales, were dimin-
| ished by the reduction in the wagework-
ers' earnings, by manufacturers and the
employees of manufacturers who furnish
of R W me o aosss % s~eF
ed Tor the very necessities of life.
Here there were three wrongs but the
third was the result of the first two. Most
fworssing men will agree that men who
were getting $3.50 a day were foolish to
strike. but passing that what defence was
there flor all the members OF the Buiiding
Trades Council, 1850 in number, to 90 out
"ons o. sympathy: striker" We may also
admit thats the master builders were
wrong when they tied UP and put stop
to, all work for four months. but what
could shs expected? They. also. were hui
tnAan, andit is human nature to strike
tback, Sha. the master builders retaliated
FLOR what They rightfully considered
needless strike of employees.
There is another instance of a totally
senseless boycott given by Mr.. D. NJ.
Parry. We know that Mr.. Parry is re-
garded by nearly all union men as the
enemy of labor, which we think is not
true or just charge, but be that as 1t may,
We give the incident as related by him:
A painter one day asked me for a job.
I had nothing for HIM in the factory and
told him that he might paint the steps of
Imy house, although they hardly needed
1t: When he got through 1 paid him
what he asked, but few days later the
walking delegate of the Painters Union
called upon me and said that my steps
had been painted at a rate less than the
union, scale.s ! told him 1 knew nothing
about Shis union scale and cared less, and
lshowed him out of my office. Then the
Painters Union applied for a national
boycott On my factory. The application
passed through the Central Labor Union
LOT Indianapolis and was sent up to Presi-
Ident Gompers of the American Fedora
Elton OF Labor! Mr.. .Gompers came out
to Indianapolis to see my front steps. and
in a speech there gave forth, the startling
granted upon the petition of the painters.
Thus the Parry Manufacturing Company
was to be sacrificed for my personal act.
a good example of the sense of Justice
II which animates the strike bosses. Well, l
was boycotfed. The boycott was an ad-
vertisement and my business has never
been larger than since it was declared.
The, fact. that his business was actually
benefited by the boycott shows that he
was more, fortunate, than most employers
are. But leaving that out, can any one
imagine a more senseless and childish act
for grown men to engage in than to sol
EMMY and officially boycott large bust
ness because a mans door-steps had been
painted at a price less than that fixed by
the union? 1t is more than probable that
Mr.. Parry didn't inquire or know or care
whether the painter belonged to a union
} or not, nor did he know or care whether
the price she paid was below or above the
lscA1e nor ddeaiit matter The boycott
j wasi foolish and altogether indefensibIe.
b And to show that Mr.. Parry is not In.
tolerant ne recently stated that he be.
> tiieved employees have a. right to strike
individually or collectively but they
have no right to interfere with the bust.
ness of their employers, or with the mer
hired to take their places" he adds, and
he is right. AS Tho Advertiser has more
than once said, the working men have an
undoubted right to quit, work for what
: they consider good cause. provided they
violate no contract in so doing, but there
: Etheir rights end. They have not arvestige
tof right to interfere with the property of
ktheir late employers or to prevent others
> talking the jobs they have voluntarily sur
rendered.. When they do either they be-
come outlaws, and that is all there is
about it.
And while on this subject, there is an
} other thing that may be alluded to, and
that Is the demand for an universal eight
;. hour law The. claim So. often set up
thatia man can do as much in eight hours
} IS he can in ten lis an absurdity on the
: face of it. Blythe same mode of reason
: ing he can do as much in six hours as he
s can in eight and so on down until he
: can prove that a man can do as much
: by not working at all as he could by
u working ten hours. If that is looked on
: as the reductio ad absurdum 1t Is a legit-
It innate result of the arguments used IN
d favor of legal eight-hour law. And sup
n pose, by the way, some employer should
1Se tell his men that. they could live as we'll
lie on SIG week as they could on 500, would
. they nor resent the statement? Yet that
Il is just as reasonable as the other. In one
20 case it is work and in the other it is nav.
ID but the principle is the same.
20 The whole truth Of the matter is that