Denver labor bulletin., 1915-04-10

NaleA trust You VIII give the same
publicity you accorded the original ar
ticle
To the criticism of the Colorado board
make no reply other than to call your
attention to the fact that the statute
creating the present board provides no
methods by which the wages of women
and minors may be regulated, being
practically two-year investigating com
mission
Very truly yours,
MARY c. PORTER
Letter From Mrs Gee.
United Garmenet Workers of America
Local Union No. 22s.
Portland, Oregon.
Mis- Mary G. Porter. Denver, Colo.
Ny Dear Miss Porter:-The minimum
wage law has not affected the organ
ized workers- You must know there are
mt many crafts, / am sorry to say,
that are organized consisting of women
workers Now in speaking of the Gar
ment Workers, the only way it affects
them is raise OF 64c a week above the
union minimum scale. The union ap-
prentice time is one year on time or day
work or week, had better say IS hours
a week, and the minimum is S.; while
the state law, under the commissions
ruling, is $s.64 for nine hours. However,
the Garment Workers receive the SS.64
for 8 hours, after the law became ef-
fective.
/ don't know where the author of
Your labor paper gets his or her infor-
nation. for as far as Oregon is con-
cemed there is absolutely no truth in it.
The minimum wage law, as / told you,
does not affect the local Garment Work
ers here, except as have stated, for the
union scale for the average piece worker.
is above the minimum set by the rom
mission / note in your paper they
qiiote the average wage of the Gar
ment Workers is $l2 week which is
untrue The average of the piece work
ers is SOLO for eight hours, but taking
in all the time and piece workers there
is very little difference in the average.
and l want to say the minimum set by
the commission for the clothing indus
try is $S.64 instead of $3.50 as is stated
by your labor paper.
The Garment Workers have never had
any trouble with the firms who are en-
ploying them on account of the mimi
mum wage law They gave the time
WORKERS their difference, which was 64c
week, without the union even asking
Tor it. and as for the Garment Workers
coing on strike, such a statement is alb
solutcly false and absurd. The Garment
Workers at the present time are only
Working 81 hours and l5 minutes a week
that is. part of them--In the shirt
department they are only working 81
hours a week. but the minimum wage
law had nothing to do with it.
personally think that organization OF
WORKERS is the only thing, but can't
see how the law is going to retard or
rauization. For my part. l think some
of the rulings will have tendency to
force organization.
l am in favor of any legislation that
will help the women workers. for it is
dcplorable fact that they don't help
themselves. ], for my part can't sec
why every one can't see the need of
Organization, and If we were more solid
" organized, we would not need a min
iinum wage law. That is what has
forced the minimum wage And I say
II it only helps a few, it is that much.
aud the Garment Workers in Oregon
are not opposed to it. You may give
this letter for publication with my per-
mission, and my name signed
Yours truly,
MRS. l.. GEE,
Pres. Garment Work.
ers Local ees.
There Was No Strike.
Industrial Welfare Commission
OF the State of Oregon.
Portland, Oregon.
Mics Mary G. Porter, State Wage Board
Denver, Colo.
Dear Mas Porter:--You nrc correct in
regard to the regulations in Oregon. The
minimum in factories Is $s.6l week.
am not aware Of any striks by the
garment workers, nor Is there any cp-
position on the part Of organized labor