New-York tribune., 1905-08-27
BRICKLAYERs' UNION CRITICISED.
Foreigner with a Grievance Says His Case
Is Ignored.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: Some time ago 1 was compelled TO apply with
one case bricklayers' union. and met thereat
such strange things which not a foreigner prooaoiy
never had chance meet. As. In my opinion
this case has general interest, shall give IL here
with all indispensable details:
On June 26 last looked for work, and applied
TO the manager in one unfinished building. he gave
me note TO the bricklayers foreman OF building
in another street. ordering in this note 10 put me
on concrete work in cellars
began that day after dinner My work consisted
in making concrete mixture and in hling pits 1or
pillars. During the first two days worked with
q helper, and June 2S alone. i alone MADE
concrete mixture, and then carried II IN a wheel
barrow. During this day 1 was able to hnish only
two pits Cthey were larger than the former) and
during two previous day-eieven altogether-thir-
teen pits. 1 asked nothing about wages
On June % when I came TO continue the WORK
the foreman said that there was no more work for
me- as during the previous day 1 made only two
pieces. When 1 asked about money for my work he
gave me 81
l protested and pointed out that in the building
trades even plain laborers receive s. a day. and
l worked two days and half After TINS 'he lofe-
man added 50 cents. and declined 10 pay more "'
out any explanation.
The man who gave me a note TO the foreman
was present at this time. 1 applied TO him he
answered that this work is piecework and that they
nav 30 cents for each pit. and as made on the
81 a day. After this he went away. 49,. .,..-
never was told that IT was pece%ork put even wen
if So for thirteen pits 1 had to receive not * and
nS Seeing that / cannot receive my full wages. I
the brcklayers to tell me the name or the contIc rae
tor The bricklayer declined 10 do IT, and then
declined also to give the name Of the foreman
When went off met in the street another brick
layer (who not present during the conversa-
bG bt bis Shu bTcsaver also declined to say the name
of the contractor, when he heard why 1 desired
on the following day, June 80. delivered to the
secretary OF ferfa IN pb S ana Hnresssd th
hope that the union does not approve such things.
and will help me to receive full payment for my
or July Is called into the meeting room Of the
union to inquire about the case II was before
meeting and there were present ony two officials
Of the union ! was tod that the union on has moth,
work and not bricklayers' work. Later in an in
the cause Of inactivity Of the union was given that
that l not member.
the Greater n Y executive board Of bricklayers.
about which read IN newsPaPers IN connection
but the secretary declined to tell the address Of
After this wrote several times to the secretary
of the union, and asked him about this address.
August q he answered me as follows: II cannot
give you the address OF the Greater n y union.
do do president would not give me to
I find these refusals very strange. and cannot
understand what reasonable ground they have for
keeping secret the address Of this board ! applied
to the union and desired 10 upply 10 tne DOarC OF
bricklayers because my claim is against one OF the
members and because. In my opinion, the unions
have the right 10 demand from their members hon
esty in all matters of business
The union. or the board. might read my letter 20
the foreman bricklayer and demand explanations
from him-why he has paid me only 81 per day,
building trade Of New-York- IL II was piecework
then why he did not pay for pieces?
If he could not give any reasonable explanation.
then the union the board would have the right
to demand from him the full payment for this work
AS did not make an agreement about wages and
as there is no law concerning the latter. I have
are. OF quite sufficient for the union for
the board OF bricklayers. FOREIGNER.
New-York. August %. 1905.