New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-06-30
THE EMPLOYERS SIDE
Why the Garment Manufacturers Abrosated
the Protocol and Declared a Lockout.
the Editor OF The Tribune.


workers strike seem TO be perpexing most
people.
First: Why did the manufacturers lock
out their workingmen? Second Why did
they or their association decline the invita-
tions of the various civic bodies to present
their side Of the case and justify themselves,
and what are they so stubbornly holding out
for?
In answer we say: The Council of Con-
citation gave decision multiplying the pref
erenta union shop clause and making al
closed shop which it had no right TO do. The
union. in the Jewish papers and in "The
New Post" the official organ Of the union
threatened to call strike in July, at the
height of the biggest season in the industry,
which would not only be detrimental to the
manufacturers but to the workingmen, as II
would deprive them of the opportunity of
working at that time of the year when their
salaries are largest.
We sought to avert the loss of time and
money by closing shops at a time when
we might be able TO adjust conditions during
the slack season. The issues were the pref
erential union shop and the right of hire
and discharge of workingmen. The conces-
sion of these demands to meet the views of
the union would entirely destroy the eff
cheney in the shops and turn over their con-
troll to the officials of the union.
We refused TO meet the civic bodies and
uplfters because we felt that they were ut
terly ignorant Of conditions in the industry
and to concede the closed shop and the right
of discharge would be to deliver to the union
full control Of every shop in the industry.
The association contends that the free right !
Of he a
discharge or to regulate the number OF en-
ployes in a factory to NEE. the requirements
of the business as inherent with the employer
and essential TO the discipline, efficiency ND
wellbeing of the industry. To submit thes,l
rights TO arbitration would be 20 admit that
they are questionable and susceptible OF com
promise.
The Council of Cancellation in its recon
mendations" on the equal distribution OIL
work in the shops during the dull season
recommended such practices where possible,
but said, This practice cannot be held to
imply the right to permanent tenure OF en-
ployment either in a given shop or IN the
industry as WELL; yet the union insists that
worker, once employed, has the right OF
perpetual employment. He may leave at WILL
but cannot be discharged.
This is not a fight between employer and
union leaders of socialistc, anarchistic and
nolitical union. We do not wish to crush the
union and never we're DESTROYS of doing so,
nor are we against organized labor. We
merely want the right granted every other
employer-the right to run his own shop
r,itbout the domination of union commit
tod n these policies We have granted ana
are willing TO continue to grant the worHlhg-
mon wages. hours holidays, sanitary condi-
lions and absolutely fair treatment, out
rofuso 10 let the union leader run our
sbops We want the right to hire and DIS
charge workingman according 70 has eih-
cheney. regardless Of his standing or per-
sonal affiliations with the union. That is all
We arc fighting for
Our shops are open to our workingmen'
who want to come back, but they nave oeen
so intimidated by their leaders that they arc
afraid TO do so. If the social WORKERS anu
civic bodies and women interested in the well
fare of the workingmen want PROOF OF tne IN
adequate notice protection given those VINO
orc willing 70 work. let them come to our
Iecal department and We will show them
cases of men who have been waylald and
beaten on their way TO work.
In "The Forward" Of June q last there
ornesred an omen letter addressed TO the
manufacturers, in which they were told nat
l.. that they should be glad that they we're
not driven out of their own shops and aoso-
lutte possession taken Of these SHOPS py inc
workers. who. the writer said, had an so-
solute right to the shops-in fact thst they
owned them. and that every time the WORK
mon were opposed by the manufacturers they
we're coming nearer to that time when thelr
shops would be taken away from them en-
tireIy The writer was one NJ. Baranof,
disncnser Of socia.istic propaganda and me
Jewish press published his emanatlons rs
inspired. -,
The article referred to said:
"The statement of the manufacturers tha'
the employes want high wages is absolutely
false. for the employees do not demand 700
r,rcb hut as a matter of fact. they demand
too little. instead oi
tbem and melting them to fight, you (tne
manufacturers) should avoid conflicts with
them (the workers., for after every con-
fict they will demand bigger portion II
YOU do not wake up you will find some day
that thew will drive you out Of the shops.
The reason for it is that the shops are not
yours, but theirs.
you owe your present standing to your
,mployes. II follows, therefore, that your
shops belong to the workers and not TO your
selves
Here we have demonstrated as plainly as
il ever was demonstrated just what these
union leaders demand. The principle for
which we are struggling is that we must be
free to conduct our shops without interior
ence. and this inspired article not only de-
MES US this right, but you will see, con-
tends for the principle OF turning over the
shops absolutely to the workers.
THE CLOAK, SUIT AND SKIRT MANU-
FACTURERS PROTECTIVE ASSN.
New York June 29, 1916.