Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1921-04-29
SHOW REAL
LABOR COST
IN BUILDING

III DUlUOll7I
At ST. Joseph. Mo. when the build
ing contractors. IN line with the open
shop. wage-cutting movement, began
10 spread the usual propaganda about
wages being responsible for the cost
OF building. the building craftsmen got
on the job with figures Of Their own,
completely disprOYing the claims Of
the contractors, and to prove the sin
certify of their statements, the build.
ing craftsmen are willing 10 back up
their figures. and guarantee that build
ing labor will cost no more than they
have estimated The contractors
claimed that if labor costs were re.
duced. the price of a 5-room cottage
could be reduced 81 600 but the labor
men show that the total labor cost in
such building does not amount 10 ST.
600 As to the contractors. of course,
they guarantee nothing except profit
to themselvs.
The st. Joseph Union gives the fol
lowing report Of the action OF the
building craftsmen:
THE organizations engaged in the building
trades have issued statement 10 the pubic
which explodes the pet theory OF the contract
ors that extremely high labor costs are what
Il retardinr building operations in st Joseah.
II the people will give careful confederation
to the figures presented by the unions they
will have "a much better idea of the true facts
In the
'rhe contractors have, in most Instance.
taken n fve-room cottage as an example aud
have told the people that If labor would ae-
cept the 1919 scale the cost Of such building
could be reduced 81 600 In other words IN
effort Ia made 10 fool the people into believing
that the working man is the prohteer.
Representative Of the building trHdeB
unions got together the other day and did
little figuring average fve-room eottaRe.
OF course they concerned themselves only with
the cost of labor for that seems To be the
bone of contention. The working men know
as well ~ the contractors, how much time u
required on the average cottage. The num-
Der Of days for each of the several crafts WIS
multiplied by the rate per day which the
uni/ls proposed at recent meeting OF joint
committee.
This showed that the total labor cost on
such n cottage would be but 1858. II the
rcale asked by the employers 1919 scale
were used the reduction In labor charges
over the scale asked by the unions would be
Sl7i. Where. then, does the contractor pet
with his claim that the wages asked by the
unions make difference of $1,000 in the
cost Of the building when compared with the
1919 scnle2
"'The estimate made by the unions is lib
ernl in all details. The disposition of those
who made the figures was To place them high
enough TO cover all continRenciths Tor III
stance, the contractors say the carpenter work
on such n building ought To be done in sixty
days. Yet in the table compiled by the unions
seventy days time are allowed. Plumbing,
which ordinarily takes five days, Is put down
in this estimate at days, and 80 on
through all of the various operations neees-
sary to complete the cottage Further. the men
are willing to guarantee 10 any contractor
that the cost of the work specified will not
exceed the figures they have given out.
"rhe workingmen know that the cost of
building Is high and that for this many
are hesitating about letting contracts. But
they cannot where II Is right To ask them
to he the goat. II those who really want to
know why II costs so much to build viii In
vestigate the cement trust, the lumber trust
and few other trusts they will get some
where near the right place to find the infor-
nation that will show where the cause for
complaint lies.
.It seems TO be an agreeable pastme for
some people to blame Il all on labor. with,
out taking the trouble TO get the facts All
that the working men ask Is that they be
given square dcnl'
This Story Not Told
Cleveland--Trade unionists show
that a stating contractor bought slate
at S1l25 square with the under
standing that there would be no sale
unless he charged S23 square for
putting ii on,
Lets see. what Is II that makes
building high-oh, yes, it's the high
cost of labor. isn't it?" is the com
ment of Charles Smith, business rep
resentatiye of the Building Trades
Council.
This seems like a pretty good ar
gument when we go to talk to the EN-.
ployers," said Smith, but the unfor-
tunate part of the business Is that this
is not the kind of a story which the
anti-union campagners are feeding the
public. They conceal a story of this
kind"
Make Juicy Profit.
Newark. N. i'm opposing a wage
cut, suggested by building contractors
the Building Trades Council declared
in favor of work suspension rather
than reduce living standards.
One delegate was quoted as stating
that there are contractors in this city
who have made a profit of $22 week
ly on a single building trades mechan-
ic" The unionist said contractors
have made a profit of IS a day ON
bricklayers by paying the workers
$40 a day. while informing the own.
ers that they were compelled to pay
$13 in order to Justify their charge of
SIS a day for each man In their em-
ploy.
In some of the building trades, the
contractor charges the customer
profit of 30 cents an hour on the Ia,
Dor of each man employed. On other
Workmen the rake-off is said TO be
more, and on some less. This repre-
sents about 1913 per cent added
charges To the wages of the workman
about which the public hears nothing
and which materially adds to the cost
of the completed building.