The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-12
Anthracite Operators Reject
Contract Proposed by
John Mitchell.
WOULD ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
Employers Say They Cannot Deal
With Union Controlled by
a Rival Industry.

Baer and His Associates Reply at Length
to the Propositions of the Mitchell
COmmittee-Eight Hour Day Would
Result In Great Reduction OF Output
Miners Now Better Paid Than Men
in Like Industry--Law Would Prevent
the Companies From Acting as Coll
Iectors for the demonstrating Scale
Best for the Men--Awards Of the
Roosevelt Commission Upheld.
The demands of the anthracite mine
workers have been rejected in toto by the
committee representing the operators, who
refuse absolutely to make an agreement Of
any kind with the United Mine Workers
of America. The reply Of the operators to
the demands of the union as formulated by
John Mitchell, chairman of the miners
committee, was handed out for publication
in this mornings papers. 1t is addressed
to Mitchell and his associates and it is signed
by George F. Baer, W. H. Truesdale, j. B.
Kerr, David Wilcox, Morris Williams,
E. B. Thomas and j.. L.. Cake.
The demands Of the miners we're for a
written agreement for one year with the
organization, the eight hour day, a uniform
scale of wages throughout the anthracite
regions, an increase Of 10 per cent. to men
working under contract and an additional
10 per cent. to all men using safety lamps,
H. ...;-li-- 20 aool - oil roinao NTH all
| payments on the basis Of a ton Of 2,240
pounds; the deduction by the owners of a
certain percentage Of each miners wages
to be paid into the union as his dues, and
the a~brogation of the board of conoiliation.
\ The operators apparently failed to see
merit in any of these demands and make
this counter proposal:
OPERATORS UNIT PROPOSAL.
"Our proposition is that the awards made
by the Anthracite Coa Strike Commission
and the principles upon which they were
| established by the commission and the
methods established for carrying out their
findings and awards shall be continued for
and during a further term of three years
from the first day Of April, 1906.
1T had been our hope, and, we trusted,
the public expectation as well, that the
effect of the exhaustive investigation and
findings of the distinguished citizens who
| constituted the Anthra cite Strike Com
mission would be to establish a just and
permanent adjustment Of the relations
| between the operators and their employees.
We therefore regret you suggestions that
an entirely new and untried arrangement
should be made, which is only TO last for
one year.
1T is not to the interest of employers
or employees, nor OF the public, to have
the mining business, az well as the general
business and comfort of the people, seri-
ously disturbed by these yearly contentious.
Neither can stand these progressive
and o increases in'the cost OF pro-
duction of anthracite coal, followed neces-
sarily by corresponding increases in its
price.
1T is peculiarly fortunate, therefore,
that existing conditions have all been the
result of arbitration by third persons,
80 that neither party can say that it has not
had due consideration. There can be no
doubt that the good of all concerned will
be served best by adhering to the results
thus reached"
U~NALTERABLY FOR THE OPEN SHOP.
The letter takes up each demand sepa-
rately and discusses it at some length. or
the proposed agreement with the union
the operators say that the same objections
apply to it to-day as were found by the
Strike Commission.
I'VE stand unalterably for the open shop"
says the reply, a again decline to make
an agreement with the United Mine Workers
OF America, an organization controlled
by a rival industry
This reference to "a rival industry" il
based on the fact that the organization is
dominated by the bituminous coal workers.
1T is possible the reply says, "for a n
organization controlling the bituminous
and anthracite miners to 30 shape it's course
that the bituminous operators can increase
wages and reooup themselves by an adj
vance In price through a strike in the an
thraoite mines"
OF the demand for shorter hours the
reply says;
CAN'T GRANT EIGHT Hot DAY.
we know of no change in conditions that
can be used to sustain this renewed demand
for an eight hour day. On the other hand,
the expectation Of the commission that the
reduction from ten hours to nine hours
should not result in any decrease 10 the
output of the mines has not been realized.
Our experience shows that it is imprao-
| ticable to produce as much coal working
nine hours, breaker time, as we can work.
ing ten hours. If now we reduce breaker
time to eight hours our production must
be decreased and our cost is necessarily in
creased, because our expensive maohin-
cry ia idle an additional hour per day, and
not producing a return on the capital in
vested.
at is needless to recapitulate the reasons