The Connecticut labor news., 1921-03-18
PACKERS SMASH FEDERAL RULINGS
 ON ARBITRATION
Bluntly Ignore Agreements Made Through Government in 1918,
 and Cut Wages.

Chicago, March 18.-Quickly follow ing their abrogation of an agreement with workers, to which the government was party to, the big five" meat pack CTS announce a 12H per cent wage re- duction and longer hours.
 Under the agreement any change III working conditions had to be passed upon by Federal Judge Alschuler, who was selected by the national council of defense in 1918 to act as arbitrator until peace was declared.
 In April, 1919, the packers asked Sec retary >Sof Labor Wilson to extend the agreement one year after peace was de clared. They said they were impelled to take this action in order Ito avoid labor controversies and to promote the general welfare during the troublous period of reconstruction"
 Under this agreement the arbitration machinery functions until one year after peace is officially declared by the United States. This is the packers own pro- posal. Now they reject it and announce war on their employees.
 Their first step Is to smash the arbi- tration machinery created by the gov ernment by giving notice to the United States department of labor that in the future they would not submit to the
 
 ministrator."
 "The packing house barons have not only struck blow at arbitration, but they have shaken the confidence of the 100000 employees In this industry and all other workers in the efficacy of govern mental agencies" declared Dennis Lane, secretary treasurer of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen's Union.
 What do you suppose enters into the mind of the worker who stayed on the job for 40 cents an hour during the war period, and who never received more than 5 cents an hour in the high wage period of 1919 to 1920, because he Loyalty kept his agreement with the government not to strike, but arbitrate now when the packers disregard the government and attempt to cut wages and 1engthen hours? Does 1t increase his respect for government, law or order? Will he or other workers ever again take kindly to arbitration?
 "As recently as last August two of our local unions in the sausage-making plants in this city went on strike and the packers immediately requested the secretary of labor to urge them to re- turn to work and maintain thier agree ment. Our international union ordered these men back to work on penalty of revocation of charter in order to sustain our agreement with the government. The labor market was in our favor then and we could have won that strike, se cured a large increase in wages and other concessions.
 Keep i'll mind that August, 1920, was almost two years after signing of the armistice, yet the packers then, with the existing labor market, did not plead that the agreement should be set aside because the signing of peace with Ger many had long been deferred"
 MT. Lane states that when the packers asked for an extension of the agreement, in 1919, their employees were not anxious fo accept the plan. About 90 per cent of these workers are classed as 'Fun- skilled" Then they were receiving but 40 cents an hour, and they knew that with the condition of the labor market favorable to them they could, through their economic power, secure substantial concessions from the packers.
 We listened, however, to the appeal of the government" said Secretary Lane, that we continue to submit to arbitration and renew our agreement with the department of labor for the period requested by the packers one year after peace had been signed, and we did agree and sign such an agreement.
 "If the packers had any sense of jus tice and decency in their attitude to- ward their employees, and sincerely be- lieved that reduction i'll wages and any changes in hours or working conditions were justifable because of a changed economic situation, they would and could have made use of the arbitration machinery under the A1schuler agree ment by filing a petition for hearing and decision on such matters That was the orderly procedure they were moral ly obliged to follow under their agree ment with the government
 There was no penalty clause attach ed to this agreement, but what care the packing barons for moral obligations