The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1913-10-31

We have our share of natural curios-
ity and we confess to being curious as
to how much of a hand the laundry
proprietors had in the unsavory mess
that has been stirred up in this city
over the public hearing held by the
Industrial Welfare Commission. You
may well believe that if they had any
hand in the pie it was carefully con-
cealed, but it is undoubtedly true that
they did not weep any tears of sorrow
over the sensation created by the pub
lication from day to day of purported
remarks of Mrs. Mcmahon and Mrs.
Swanson and the prompt response of
the churches and other organizations.
1t might not be amiss to go back
and relate a little political history
which involved laundry proprietors in
this state. During tn e1911 session
of the legislature a bitter fight was
waged by proprietors employing wom-
en- to defeat the women's eight-hour
law. In the front rank of the scrapping
employers were the laundrymen of
this state. They came singly and in
droves, in battalions and regiments.
They were the bitterest opponents of
the bill in the state. To that session
came Mrs. Mcmahon, at her own eX-
pense, to work for the bill. She ran
I'D against the laundrymen's lobby and
did not come off second best, The
neither forgot nor forgave.
At the hearing held in this city last
week the laundry proprietors were
quite frank in stating Il think it was
Mr.. Durr that voiced the sentimenO
that they were not receiving fair treat
ment at the hands of the commission.
Mr.. Durr stated that they were there
to protect their business. No one
blamed them for that; it was wholly
Neither was it to be Won
dered at that they should object to a
law which threatened to compel them
to give more of their earnings to their
They admitted that the
public had been MIXED as much as it
would stand in the matter of prices.
Mr.. Durr stated it as his opinion
that a girl could live quite decently
and comfortably upon $500 a week.
Perhaps so. We doubt it. We know
no man will admit that he can live
decently on that and we fail to see
that a girl requires less in the way of
food, shelter and clothing, than a man
does. After admitting that a girl
should receive at least eight dollars a
week, we wonder why the laundrymen
of this city, who, by the way, have
quite a strong organization (see your
laundry slips for testimony to that
fact), don't agree to place their wage
schedule at that minimum, inadequate
as we believe it to be.
We believe that careful investiga-
tion will prove that the average laun-
dry girl in this city receives much less.
The wages are said to run from IL 1a
cents an hour to 19 cents an hour.
The main contention of the proprietors
was that they could not afford to pay
a six-day minimum wage when they
could only give their girls employ
ment five days a week Supposing
the 19-cent girls worked eight hours
every day for five days. She would
receive but $3.50 a week. If the 1112
cent girl works eight hours a day for
five days, she receives $3.50 a week.
wages, truly How many
girls in the laundries of this city work
eight hours every day, five days every
week? We pause for reply.
Nobody pretends but that the mini
mum wage law when placed in opera
ton will divert a little more coin of
the realm into the pockets of these
girls No one knows it
better than the laundry proprietor
himself. He has been able to bust to
the Laundry Workers
Union in this city which was able dur
ing it's life to have something to say
Etour what the scale of vases should
lie. 1t is entirely within the bounds
of possibility that the laundry
! eve not much love for the new law
1t is easily imaginable that they are
inst now laughing I'D their sleeve at
the little stunt that has been pulled
off in this city, whether with or with
out their connivance. There is an old
adage which runs thusly: He laughs