The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1908-01-18
||M'EVVEh's REPLY To
CIVIC COMMITTEE
Maintains His i1st Position and
Shows that the Contractors
- Violated Contracts. +


| Violated Contracts.
Mr.. McEwen's letter Is as follows:
Messrs. A. H. &Comstock, chairman
and Dwight E. Woodbridge, secretary
Citizens association Gentlemen:
have carefully read your open letter
as published in The Herald, which was
an answer to mine of an earlier issue
and IN reply thereto permit me to state
that 1t Is for the public to Judge
whether or not there is a violation OF
contract involved in the present lock-
out,
| l still adhere to my former allega-
ton that there was breach Of con-
tract by the employers. Your letter
conveys the implied admission of a
violation of agreement BY an inter-
probation now for the first time given
to the terms of the contract with the
electrical workers and sheet metal
workers unions you attempt not to
deny, but to justify your position in
abrogating them.
You quote Article vi Of the contract
OF the Electrical Workers as follows:
mo non-union men shall be en-
ployed when a satisfactory union man
is available"
Then you assert: "Union men re-
| fused to, work and were, therefore un-
available" This is mere play on de-
f1nition Of words, but shall take your
Interpretation of this paragraph, and
Shall ask you if this is the truth? Did
| union electricians first refuse to work
Did not most Of the employing cleo
triciank lay off their men and post
open shop notices in their shops,
thus themselves violating the provi-
sions of the contract to which you re-
fer?
The rule governing the sheet metal
| workers, like that of the electrical
workers, was subject to but one inter-
probation until this trouble came up.
Now you, who played no part in af-
fecting the settlement of last May,
when the contract was made, take
! upon yourselves to offer an excuse for
forcing the employers to disregard
their contracts.
You, however, mentioned only such
contract with building trades unions
as are by hair-splitting distinctions, in
your opinion, capable Of other than one
Interpretation. You fail to- say any,
thing about the contracts Of the en-
ployers with the plumbers and steam
filters unions. You did not quote
Rule No. Of the plumbers contract,
which reads: mo shop shall employ
any but union men having a clear
working card of the U. AZ The let
tiers ~. A." are understood by the
members of the trade to mean the
United Association Of Journeymen
Plumbers and Gas Filters. j.:
The contract with the Steamfitters'
union article w., reads: "All persons
signing this agreement agree to hire
none butVmembers in good standing in
the Steamfitters' union" Neither did
you quote this provision. Why did
you omit it? 49, !.
You may say that the Builders ex-
change had nothing to do with the
making of the contracts with these
unions, but that offers no excuse for
their violation by the parties who
made them.
The fact is, that either you or the
men interested in your movement
forced the employers to violate their
agreements with the unions under
threats that they would be given no
contract until they declared for the
open shop" Under your use of the
boycott, a weapon you pretend to alb
hor, you nave forced number of
peace-loving employers of labor to
wage a war against their workingmen.
If you contradict this, we are in a.
position to furnish the proof.
+ I am not complaining so much about
the methods to which you resort to
win your battle, but when you are
fighting under false colors you ought
to be exposed. You are against labor's
kind Of boycotts, but you are for your
kind Of boycotts.
You assert in your letter that I am
making untrue statements relative to
the situation for the purpose of UNI
fairly influencing the public. It is easy
to question the veracity of an oppon-
emit Sometimes it is the only argu-
ment one has to advance. If I desired
to respond In a retaliatory manner I
might say with truth, that many
charges are beings made against the
unions as to their methods and prac-
tees, which are not founded upon
facts.
In rather we'll guarded language you
deny having any relations with the
National Association of Manufacturers.
You know best to what extent you are
connected with that organization We
can only draw our own conclusions
from the presence Of Mr.. Drew, the
duly accepted representative of the
National Association of Manufacturers,
in this city.
He was the man that did most of
the talking to the Builders exchange
and the Real Estate exchange AS the
result Of his speech, the meeting at the
Commercial club declared for the
"open snops' and your committee was
then appointed. Contractors have in
formed me that there was a possibility
for settlement Of our trouble prior to
the time when Mr.. Drew came to Du-
luth. However, I don't blame you for
being ashamed Of any connection you
might be charged with having with
this labor crushing organization