Norwich bulletin., 1921-04-29

An award announced Thursday after noeh by Attorney Andrew B. Davies, who has acted as arbitrator, settled the wage question betweeh the master builders and the carpenters which has been under discussion this month.
 The award by Arbitrator Davies sets the new wage rate, applicable from April 4th, 1921, at 10 per cent less than the S7 1-2 cents which has been the mini mum rate pfevtIliflg. This brings the new wage scale at 7s 3-4 cents an hour.
 When the negotiations for a new wage agreement were opened. the master build CTS offered 75 cents an hour and the car pertefs stood for maintaining the wage scale at S7 1-2 cents C. Morgan Will jams and Henry G. Peck were named by the master builders as their representa- tives on conference committee and the carpenters named Robert McNeely and Joseph Barry. When this committee could not agree after two meetings they se- 'lected Mfr. Davies as arbitrator.
 The afbitrators award has been ac- cepted as binding by both sides. whicn
 was ones of the conditions Of the arbi- | tration.
 While the arbitration was in prosresa
 the carpenters agreed to remain at work
 at the 75 cent rate and there. was no | strike.
 Arbitrator Davies made his award az
 follows:
 To the Master Builders and Thames Union No. 137. Carpenters and Join | CTS of America, of Norwich, Con- l necticut.
 You have referred to me for deterrni
 nation the question as to what mini
 mum hourly wage shall be paid, iron
 and after April I, 1891, by the Master Builders of Norwich to the members o the union, above named, for work ana
 labor performed.
 l think I appreciate the ifnuortanci
 of proper answer to this question, in volvins, as 1t does persons and corpor
 ations with large amounts of investet Eeapital. the personal and family inter
 ests of the members of the union, and
 to some extent. at least, the welfare 0
 the community at large
 have given the question very care
 ful consideration, have read and re-rea the written arguments .and statement or Tact which you have submitted { me tattempting to give to each argu ment and fact it's proper weight) and have sought, and obtained, from source : which I believe to be unparalleled an reliable, other information which scene to me necessary and proper in the dt
 termination of said question. The basis of the demand by member or said union for an increase in wage in years past, has been, I take it, nc that such members had acquired a d, , gree of efficiency in their woys, nd l heretofore attained. nor that the Tt I auirements of the builders had becont
 more exacting, nor that working cond tions had become less acceptable, nt l. that the number of working hours hs ;, been increased, but, principally, if n, 7 solely. that the cost of living had m; 1 terially increased.
 With this fact in mind. an fhcrea, 2 in wages to meet the increased cost Il living having been granted and mai, c tained for some time and the builder = now demanding that the members ( said union accept reduction in wage !, the following questions present then n selves:
 1. Has the cost of living been reduc, r since the last increase in wages agra, > to by the builders?
 | ?. If so, to what extent has it be, l. reduced?
 3. If 1t has been reduced. js fhA r
 ducti5n in wages now proposed by tI k builders excessive considering the exte $ of the reduction in the cost of living? l. 1. If it should be found that it h y been reduced. is. there. at this tim l. any off-setting reason why the prese !, scale of wages should be fnaintaineds , e The answers to these duesions. IS seems to me, will determine the ansvs l. to the principal question under conside d tion, my own answers being as follow f 1. From my personal experisnt ia from my examination of the daily I ' ports regarding living conditions in ti d and other places and from personal C a servation, I believe the cost of livir