The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1920-12-31

Jcl, 1NllduclpHld, d., L - vi -
November 18th, 1920.
SUBJECT: what has the Worker
a Right to Expect Of Indutry?'
In any consideration of the ques-
ton, What has the worker a right
to expect Of industry we must as
sumo general recognition and ac-
ceptance of the fundamental social
right of labor-the right to an op-
portunity to work. Orderly society
must afford opportunities Of en-
ployment to its great constituent
element, the workers, and that form
of society which does not do this
has something inherently wrong
with it that must be corrected, eth
er by unemployment insurance, or
measures for the regularization of
employment.
Conceded this social right, the in
dustrial rights of the workers are
elementary.
/. The worker has right to a
able him to live and to support his
family according to American stand
ards of living in health and rea-
sonable degree of comfort.
2. The worker has a right to a
basic day as short as commensurate
with maximum efficiency and maxi
mum production.
3. The worker has a right to rec
ognition as a so-called part Of in
dustry, and, as the result of this
recognition, entitled therefore, to d
voice in the control of industry and
it's operation. This embraces the
right of the workers to organize
and to bargain collectively with his
employer through representatives Of
his own choosing, and his right to
share in the proceeds of industry
over and above his wage in pro-
portion to his productive efficiency.
These rights of the worker are
predicated upon his being considered
and treated as a social being. Labor
is no longer regarded as a mere
commodity, to be dealt with on the
basis of the law of supply and de-
mand, to be exploited mercilessly, or
to be exploited intelligently and pa
tronizingly by self-appointed over
lords of industry, That industry
which does not or can not yield its
workers a living wage is unsocial,
and has no economic or ethical
right to exist, and that industry
which requires of its workers un-
duly long hours is destructive and
may also be classed as inimical to
the best interests of society as a
whole.
AS a rule such industries as these
which take advantage of and eX-
plot their workers, are equally un-
scrupulous in the tribute they levy
upon the general public in the way
of high prices and unjustifiable
profits. There is no better concrete
illustration of this than is to be
found in the anthracite coal in
dustry, the control of which cen
ters in this city and the mining
operations of which are within a
short distance.
When the anthracite miners pre-
sented their wage demands and 9th
er grievances to the commission
appointed by President Wilson they
exposed a condition of affairs shock
ing to all right thinking men and
women. They showed that miners
and their families were living un-
der housing and community condi-
tions which were deplorable to say
the least. The earnings of heads of
families in the coal mines were
found to be inadequate. In order
to supplement the family income,
or the earnings of husbands and
fathers, the wives and children of
the miners were forced into the
silk mills, the shirt factories and
the knitting mills that are to be
found throughout the anthracite re-
gion, some of which have been de
liberately developed there to take
advantage of the necessities of the
mine workers and their families.
Forty per cent of the wives of the
anthracite miners either kept board
ers and lodgers or were employed
for wages, and approximately 2S
per cent of the families were de
pendent upon the earnings of chill
dren. Evidence was also offered to
show the monopolstic control and
monopolistic profits of the anthra-
cite industry, and that the industry
could pay a living wage without
increasing the price of coal to the
consumer, but this evidence was bar
red from consideration on the tech
nical grounds that it was not ger
name to the arbitration. The an
thracite operators took the position
that the matter of their profits was
none of the public's business, and to
date they have been permitted to
get away with this amazing AFRO
gance.
Those familiar with the proceed
ings will recall that one operator
testified that he knew 1894 per day
to be a living wage because he knew
miners who lived and supported
their families on that amount, He
admitted that the wives and children
'helped." Another operator declar-
ed that the budgets of living re
quirements presented on behalf of
the miners were not fair because
they did not take into consideration
opportunities for growing food
stuffs in gardens, for securing fresh
eggs from the workers own flock
of chickens, for fresh milk and
cream and butter from CONS owned
by the workers, for fresh air, open
country and independent living,
which are afforded without cost to
the workers in many sections of the
region" He did not sug-
gest, however, that the operators
might be content with a smaller
margin of profit because of their in
comes from outside investments.
The Commission gave the miners
a wage increase that increased the
cost of a ton of anthracite coal APP
proXimately so cents. Before the
Commission began its hearings. how