The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1911-05-08
NOT ENTIRELY SATISFACTORY.
Vermont Labor Legislation As Seen by
C. L. U.'s Executive Board.


sion OF the Vermont legislature and in
reply to a statement that labor men
were well pleased with the fruits Of
the session. The letter, as addressed to
The Times, is as follows:
On the American Federationist for
April and weekly news letter OF the
A. +. of L., copied BY the Barre Daily
Times, there appeared the following ar
ticle, written by organizer Ironside:
"'As a result Of organized effort, there
was enacted an employers liability bill,
voluntary compensation plan, ON lines
adopted in New York state; a valuable
amendment to the child labor law, max
ing it the best law in New England; a
bill to amend the state constitution,
giving the legal voters the right to
say whether compulsory compensation
should be legalized. We were also sue
cessful in defeating bill designed to
establish compulsory arbitration. We
are wen pleased with the fruits of the
| session.
! "The Central Labor union of Barre and
vicinity, recognizing that the above arti-
Gle may be misleading and il, IN some
parts, incorrect, herewith submits state
ments Of fact and corrections relative
to said statements.
eTo those not acquainted with the at
titude Of the last legislature on labor
legislation, the article might convey the
impression that the legislators were
very generous in their consideration of
the interests of the workers. Their in
terest in the welfare Of the wage-earn-
ers can best be judged in their disposi-
tion of the various bills introduced by,
or on behalf Of, labor.
Senator Gordon's employers liabil-
ity bill, although fair and equitable
measure, was modified in committee to
such an extent that ii was hardly recog-
nizable. and finally relegated to the
same graveyard where al its predeces-
sors lie inferred; that bill and Others in
the interest OF labor were refused pas
sage, even though they were planks in
the governing party's platform previous
to the election.
sThe employers liability bill, men
toned in the article, was introduced by
Representative Peck Of Burlington, un-
der the title, AN act relating to the
employment of labor This law neitn.
er abrogates nor modifies the doctrines
OF assumption of risk OF eontributory
negligence, and the fellow servant doe.
trine only insofar that the negligence OF
a superintendent, foreman or someone
acting in authority shall be no bar to
recovery: the slightest change that could
,,o..sstl., ~ ,,.al. e. AKA arm afans, Ia
relative TO employers liability.
Some employers expressed themselves
as being quite agreeable that such an
alteration should be made; but at the
public hearing on this bill, not one Of
labor's representatives spoke word in
favor Of it as presented. Futher more,
labor's representatives, over their sigma
lures. Mr.. fronside included, made a
public stateinAits 10 the effect that,
while thev could not consistently oppose
the bin, still it was not what they want
ed; that they preferred the Gordon bill,
even with its notifications. That state
ment was read in the House by Repre-
sentative Cave while the bill was being
discussed
"Some of the members in the House
argued that the bill was simply nut
without the meat; it was not what labor
desired, and it would be an injustice to
force something upon it that it did not
want. Worthless as was the bill as pre-
sented, the farmer element in the House
constituting large majority did not
want to take any chances on 1t, and 1t
became apparent that the bill could only
be passed by exempting the farmers
from its provisions consequently they
were exempted, and although the ex-
emptinn raised the question of its CON |
stitutionality, the bill was passed, and
whether it IL constitutional or not can
only BY determined by the supreme |
court. The Senate. in passing the Peck |
bill, turned down the Gordon one, which |
had some virtue in it.
"0rganized labor was, and still Is. Of |
the opinion that the Peck bill. being
late in the session, was done
so for the purpose OF denying to labor
that which it would have gained from
the Gordon bill The voluntary compen.
sation bill introduced by Senator Cor
don, and alluded TO in the article, passed |
the Senate, but did not pass the House
and therefore is not law; although, I
until the public acts OF the legislature
were printed and distributed, it was gen
orally believed that it had passed Seem
ingly not content with killing all la
boris bills asking immediate relief, a
BILL the first of its kind in the United /
States, was introduced, which, il enact
I'd into law, would no doubt put GER
tain curb on employers, but it would
deny to organized labor in Vermont,
rights which it now possesses, and is
granted to organized labor in every
state in the union.
HThe granite cutters of Barre very
readily recognized the Importance and
Jar reaching effect such an act would
nave, and. being informed by the secre-
sary of the state federation that that
organization would neither favor nor OPP
pose the bill. they, the granite cutters,
adopted every lawful and honorable
method to prevent its enactment. and
% them principally, belongs the credit
If its defeat eve have reference to
he compulsory investigation and con-
iliation bill.l
"Whether the voters OF the state shall
lave an opportunity to say whether
compulsory compensation shall be le-
,alized or not. win not be determined
mtil the next session of the legislature.
rhe amendment to the child labor law
$ wise and humane. and very acceptable |
o labor, the more so because it came
and no organized effort s
vas made or required to bring it about; (
mt apart from that. labor legislation |
n the last session of the legislature /
an be summarized thus; All our bills .