New-York tribune., 1920-12-11

tT$SM
"Yes, completely wiped out"
and, as I understand it, you canno,
get into the employers association, AMI
cannot get into the employers associa,
/ tion ?"
That's just right"
Charles j. Siegel, of SO Livingston
Street, Brooklyn, said that he had
| trouble because he had man name
Daniel M. RAIDER, who was not mem
ber of the Marble Industry Association
doing work for him. He was working
with RAIDER on a job at the Darlington
Hotel he said, when Price and anothe,
delegate, named Donahy, of the Marble
Settlers Union, approached him and or
dered him to get rid of RAIDER because
he was not member of the employers
association.
Siegel said he paid no notice to. the
order, and in two days all his men
were called off the job by Donahy un-
til he got member of the association
to handle the job. Siegel explained
that Raiders bid for the work was
much lower than those of members of
the association, who wanted $4,000 and
$4,000 for the work, while RAIDER want
ed only $500, which he declared gave
him fair profit.
Brindell Ordered Strike
Donahy said the strike was ordered
by Brindell. AS way out of it Siegel
said he got the owners to agree to dis
pense with the use of marble alto
gether in the building, and so notified
Donahy, asking for the return of the
other laborers on the job.
But. the union delegates wouldn't
let US build the structure the way we
to me and said, MI. siegei, you are are
going to put marble work in this
building. If you don't you will have
a monument on your hands instead
Of building
Realizing that this was no idle
threat, siegel said he persuaded the
owners to give the marble contract
to the Charles M. Gray Company,
which had bid $4,000.
Testimony was given by Louis K.
F'ertig, secretary of the Marble In
dustry Employers Association, that
the international marble employers
association operates "code of prac-
tice" regulating bidding.
duced by Fertig showed that each mem
Der. made from SO to 30 per cent profit
on his labor. Under the code no build
er could reject the lowest bid as too
high. No revised bids, he said, were
permitted, and the builder could either
take the bids as they were offered or
"leave them"
He admitted that the association Writ
ually. controlled the New York market
in this line and that an outsider
couldn't get marble without doing busi-
ness through the organization.
A Working Agreement
Under severe grilling by Mr.. INTER
myer and Leonard Wallstein, associate
counsel, Fertig further said that the
association had an agreement with the
Building Trades Council through the
Building Trades Employers Associa-
ton, OF Thirty-third Street He "pre-
sumed" that as a result of this agree
ment marble contractor not lined up
with the Marble Industry Employers
Association could not obtain labor for
work in New York City.
A national organization, he went on
to say, had working understanding
with the New York organization where
by the New York men would not have
any competition within radius of
twenty-five miles of the city. In re-
turn, the New York marble men did
not go outside this limit. Both orgAni-
cations, he said, worked code of prxc-
tice. The national body, he said, had
from fifty to one hundred members
The local organization had thirty-six.
The code provided that a contract
could not be let to any member who
was not an original bidder for a job,
and that the contract could not be let
for less than the lowest bid entered by
an original bidder, he said. The asso-
citation had adopted a resolution bar
ring from membership any contractor
from outside the New York district
who had ever bid against a member Of
the local association, he testified.
do you think that was right?" Fer
tig was asked. wasn't it against tic
law?"
II didn't think Of it as right or wrong
at the time. 1t was wrong. I see it
now"
Boosted Courthouse Cost
The marble ring operated to boost the
cost of the Kings County Courthouse
about 33 per cent, according to August
K. Zicha, member of the contracting
firm Of Cork & Zicha, Of Long Island
City. Zicha said that in 1916 he en-
tered bid on the revised plans for the
courthouse. His bid, he said, was
lower than others, but it was thrown
cut because he was not one of the
original bidders, as provided for in the
employers "code of practice" The re-
vised contract, he said, was given to
one Of the original bidders at price
fully one-third higher than his.