The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-02-07
BUILDING SUSPENDED IN NEW
 YORK

YORK.
 Mir. Theodore Starrett, thoroughly competent authority, has been investi- gating the causes of so many men be- ing out of work en New York, and says ,'the tie-up in building operations is chiefly to blame" To show how it operates .American Industries" anoth- CT good authority. speaking of Mir. starrett's conclusions. says:
 That Is true enough. But why die people stop building1 Beeauss ,,nsons arGnas has formed a little group of their own. to strikes. they argued. was to have ar tioia showed itself willing to grant new of the man or company that paid the bills for the building. Did the unions Sontracaors waaf mors Rsy Rncyreased sasiS own % oiis for work--untll the cost of bailding in New York grew so big that only millionaires dared to start terations were needed in an. office building. The architect thought the additions would cost $3,500. When the bill run up to $25.oOo the owners pa- tience exploded under the strain. He discharged the architect. Then he un- dertook to finish the job, but the cost of the operation came to Just about $Ss,000, or more than twenty times as much as it should have amounted to.
 Starret cites the case of new bank building which cost moro than $1,50O,- 900 more than the owners intended 1t ,1,n snGylS The improvements on co,, the pany, recently completed, ran to $5,- 100000 above the architects estimate. The men responsible for these things from the architects down to the smal1- est union.
 These figures sound incredible, but they come from those who are compe- tent to judge. who have made thorough inquiries. and who have no reason to misrepresent. While 1t Is plain that the Unions and those who oppose unionism are both to blame, it is equally apparent to an unpreiudiced observer that the primary cause of the trouble is or was on account of into1- erant unionism. It has been a plain case. The union men made excessive demands. and if they failed to get them a strike followed or was threat ened. Then the contractors. to keep work going, gave way and granted whatever the men wanted. and all the outrageous bills had to be footed by those who were having the building done.
 In the case of the contractors on one side and unions on the other it was 6 ease of dog eat dog," to speak in terms often used of such matters. When New York moneyed men wanted to build or improve, and when they found their bills running up to five to twenty times as much as they had ex- pected, and as they had been led by the architects to anticipate, no one | should blame them for calling a halt. and no one should be surprised at the cessation of building operations in the great city. Even rich men have a right to revolt against wholesale rob- bery and in the case cited above there is no other name for 1t.
 This has been a notable instance of greed and intolerance overreachins themselves. Had the union men been satisfied with fair wages and treat ment there would not now be thou- sands of working men out of employ ment in New York. Had the archi- tects and contractors stood firm and refused unjust demands which were in -many cases little better than robbery and had they been faithful to their employers the indefensible strikes would not have succeeded and it would have been infinitely better for all par ties. By their excessive and arrogant demands the working men have cut of the source of their income and they and their families are the sufferers. It ought to be q lesson to them, as well as to all others who think they can force the money men of the country to stand and be robbed.