The Connecticut labor news., 1921-07-22


 problem the ordinary rules of com mon sense and business judgment, which are the only guides that are lett me, 1 do not believe that where, aS i'll thlS case, the question Ot Wheth- CT they must eventually pay their ar tisans $Y or $S per day Is i'll suspense, they have been so reckless and un- buoincslikc as 10 base their estimates on the lower sum, which might 1n- NOlVc them Ill serious loss. Success lul business men arc not 50 impru- dent.
 Labor Exploited. There Is no question that labor Ill W cstchcstcr county as cyseWhere, Is being unconscionably exploited and that the high cost of living is more Vitully and directly affected by this form ol prOtitccring than by the in- crease ill wages that go to the wage carncr As above stated, the charge made by the unions that the COntrac- tors add $5 per day to the cost of their labor Is not proven. 1t Is on the contrary, disproven. The vicious form of prOttccrlng to which 1 refer is praciscd mainly by the jobbcr and re- taller on day work.
 Illuminating illustrations of the practice, which has unfortunately be- come general, must be corrected If the construction and repair costs on buildings are again 10 become normal, will be found i'll bills such as that offered.
 (a) Westchester Electric Equip ment Company, where o11z hours la l Dor was charged d customer at $I.75 per hour, or $I4 day, i'll addition to | eNtOrtiOnate profits on the material used on the job. This has of late years become a standard charge of | this and other equipment companies | but Ii Is none the less unCOnSCiOnable l on that account.
 (b) William F. Booth, who charged | the customer for 42 hours labor of a plumber at the rate of $I4 per day, and nine hours for a laborer at $I per hour, in addition to extortionate profits on the material used on the job.
 Co William B. Lippoth, plumber, whose charges for material on the job represent a profit of over POO per cent. (D George w. Howard, who fur nished labor (no materiaD consisting of steam filter and helper, and a | plumber and helper, for two and one | half days each, to whom he paid i'll all $50 i'll wages and who were charged by MT. Howard to the GUS l toner at $I0o.3o for the same labor, which charge MT. Howard afterwards l 'graciously'' reduced to $40, equal to 75 per cent. profit on the labor when | the payment of his bill was refused l as cXCeSSlVe.
 quite understand that these charges include the use of tools and compensation insurance, but they are | uni nJuSt1hable.
 1t has not been possible at this dis tance to ascertain whether any, and if so which of these jobbers is also contractor or member of the Build l ing Trades Association. l must there | fore assume that none of them are, since there is no evidence before me that any of the members of that asso- citation are engaged i'll this vicious form of exploiting labor. The fact, however, remains that labor Is being unjustly held responsible by the pub | lie for this character of eXtOrtiOn. A reduction i'll the wage will profit these | industrial buccaneers and organized labor will continue to be discredited unless the unions will promptly pro- cecd by proper regulations to protect themselves and the public. An addi- ton of 20 per cent. by these jobbers to the cost of labor and materials, to cover the overhead and profit would | be ample and, as far as labor IS con cerned, the union should see to 1t that 20 per cent. IS the limit of charge, by refusing to furnish labor to jobbers who charge in excess of that amount. | Such regulations are quite as legitl- mate an dare even more important to the public than are questions of hours and wages, over which the unions now exercise such complete control.
 Remedy With Unions.
 It must at all times be borne promi- nently in mind that the decision now made will affect the labor employed in this class of work quite as vitally as that which is employed by the build CTS. If the builders had been found engaged in this form of extortion in estimating on contract work, which they arc not, their claim for a wage reduction would have received sCant attention. The remedy lies with the unions. They must refuse to furnish labor for exploitation by any class of employers, for i'll the end they are the sufferers.
 Summarizing the conclusion reach ed on this point, l accordingly find (a) that whilst the builders have not successfully borne the burden of proof as 10 the basis Of labor costs, as be- | LN tNlI fo cll41 pS c dclJ3 Oll "1l1NAl lA1~ll present estimates are based, l cannot find, as charged, that they add an eN- cessive or improper amount to the cost of labor and (b) that labor is be- ing outrageously exploited by the jobbers and that reduction in labor costs to the general public lies in the hands of the unions, through limiting g profits that may be charged on such labor. The unions have here the op- portunity to perform a signal public service that should have a substantial effect on the cost of living and that would be greatly appreciated by the suffering publci.
 | Upon the fourth point-that the em- ployers did not give timely notice of their intention 10 ask a wage reduc- ton, as contemplated by the agree mcnt, a careful examination of the documents satisfied me that 1 was partly in error as to the facts on which my first impressions on the subject were based.
 The employers were under the plain duty to give such notice within the time fixed by the agreement, for ob- vious reasons. If they gave any in timation of such intention the notice was so informal, obscure and equivo- i cal as 10 be insufficient and so re- they were to have advised the unions