The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1911-11-21
REPLY sY sHoPMEN.

A committee Of local shopmen last
night gave the Express the following
reply to the companys circular, each
point being taken up by number as
IN the circular
There are three sides to this
strike question. /. e.. the company's 5,
the employees and the publics and
the effort we are now making IS no;
tp be construed as an attempt 70
regulate the company's business IN
regard to the public but Is simply an
effort on the part OF the employas
TO gain fair treatment and a reason
able compensation for their labor
In regard TO the company's policy
OF fairness to its employees something
might be said on both sides If the
policy Of laying Off men Saturdays
and compelling them to loaf the
streets like vagabonds and then re-
Qniring them to work half the night
for the following week can be called
fair, then the company is fair Tor
this Il a common practice.
q. 1t is the aim Of every union to
establish the s-hour-day and our oh
| iect III establishing an overtime rats
4 10 make Il too expensive 10 BE- fat
In practice because We don want
to work overtime. Any physician
vim ten ycp NAT eight hours Is long
enough sor a man 70 work and last
work in excess OF that am un. Is
| detrimental to health. esqesia y
when prolonged into the night
.. This demand has been in vogue
for many years. although not covered
BY agreement. The company has
lately changed the practice and wish.
ed 10 hold a man to work The full
/ time. Fos example II was called
to work Immediately after o'clock
and worked one hour would ordi.
narily be released and paid for five
hours work. but the company now
contends that ! must work til 9;2O
for the same price and the main OBJ.
lection the employe has to this is
that he would not get his supper TIL
10 o'clock. This would seriously in
convenience a man. and his family IS
Il Is not an unusual occurrence.
70. The reason we want seniority
to govern exclusively in employing or
laying of men is because the com.
pany has taken advantage OF the abil-
! ity part Of the clause heretofore ex.
listing. While we admit L Is the du-
Gy Of The company to treat all EN-.
ployes alike and give fair and equal
consideration, we have found by ac-
+ tdai practice that seniority is totally
ignored. Il IS a common thing for 9
foreman 10 employ his friends. Civ
ing them preference over men OF
ability and seniority, totally ignoring
men who have been long in the scr
vice and have borne the burdens Of
many shul.dewns in hard times. Il
is common practice also to obtain
their foremen from foreign roads be
cause they have a pull With the man
agement. claiming there are no mer
OF ability on the system to hold th'
positions. This alone would look bad
when you consider that the men OF
! the system have all been chosen b.
the management and if their abllii1
! is at fault It can be laid to poo
Judgment In the company's selection
Of men. We contend ihal for a mai
! to obtain seniority ne must be a maj
Of ability 70 hold his position and GU
! sole reason for wishing seniority Il
T hold preference over ability is to pre-
vent the management from giving prs
! ference 10 members aud relatives Q
their families which We contend j
+ not right
"a. Running repair Is what
I known as round.house work Thi
j, work IS necessary to keep trains MOI