Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1921-04-08
WHY SHOULD
LABOR MAKE
BIGGEST CUT?
Costs Should BE Readjust-
ed on Pre-War Basis,
Saws Correspondent
ey J. N. ossood.

ON
a,;naty.fye per cent of the po-
81, buyers of Champaign and ur
seu,,' a road the Champaign News-Ga
sstte.e suppose that 70 per eeni 0,
ne unionists of these two towns READ
he spiel of f. +. Flannery printed on
,be drst page of last sundays edi'
ton. a. 49,. 70
champaign's si.50o.0o0 building pro.
S."n, is 10 be sacrificed because OF
&c differences existing between ma.
.nr;sI men. contractors, building
.eadas workers and owners of real es-
&c ar will the buildings valued at
80 than 81 500, 900 be erected as
4as,,lt of one of the greatest commun-
i,y saving decisions ever made by
,bosa who hold the vicinity building
within their grasp,
hone IL will, and hope the others
connected with building progress Will
aocide 10 reduce their prices to
,avaI with the prices asked by labor
Mr. Flannery introduces a myth
cal painter who has doped out way
Of starting the wheels turning, This
nainter suggests that all unions con-
nerted with the building trades, and
the contractors, material men, and
real estate men each select rep
resentatiye, who, with "neutrai
man chosen by these representatives
will meet and decide just what each
groun will stand for in the way of a
Sut The mythical painter believes
each group could take cut OF 20
ner cent. or thereabouts.
The article in the News-Gazette
sounds very fine. and is in exact
line with the talk being put forth by
those who believe labor should give
everything-or at least the bulk--to-
wards getting back to "normaley
But. you will notice. 1t is proposed
that each group-material men, real
estaters, contractors, and labor union
isis-take reduction of a certain
amount from the HIGHEST POINT
REACHED in their line. In other
words. labor increased approximately
70 per cent; lumber all the way from
$50 per cent up according to whom
YOU buy, other material also ad-
yaneed over 225 per cent. So, you
see that II labor took cut OF 20 per
cent, and material took cut of 20
per cent, labor would be made the
goat of the transaction, for material
would still demand a much larger in
crease over 1914 prices than would
labor.
II seems to me that very fair way
TO arrive at an equitable method OF
readjusting matters would be to take
1914 prices as a basis. It is out OF
the question to suppose that every
thing must come down to that level
again, and it is unreasonable to sup
pose that everything was paid for at
a fair rate at that time. But If all
commodities would be stabilized on
a basis of 80 per cent in advance
of the 1914 prices, then labor could
and probably would, be content to
take its proportionate cut with the
rest. But to presume that labor must
take bigger cut that the cost OF liv-
ing material, lumber, etc, as COM
pared to 1914 prices, seems to me
to be only another scheme to put
labor in its place and keep it there"
Again, labor was bound by contracts
and did not advance until some time
after the cost of living advanced
Commodities, which were bound by
no agreement, advanced whenever the
owners believed they could squeeze
that much more out of the public.
1t is well-known fact that the
cost of living (which, of course, is
the theoretical basis of the standard
OF wages, although to adhere strictly
TO 1t would be placing labor upon a
fodder basiS) increased prior to the
cost of labor; then why is labor asked
TO make the first reduction?
| would also like to ask, Would 1t
be getting back to normally" to
force labor to accept greater cut in
wages than material men are willing
TO grant, or than has been made in
the cost of living, based on normal
prices Of 1914?
To conclude, as the public speaker
says, II we were to take the 1914
standard and increase everything so
per cent, ! believe labor would be sat
lsned; but if we take the 1920 stand
ard and reduce everything 25 per
cent, labor would be getting the worst
OF II again. If we take the 1920 stand
ard and labor should take a 25 per
cent cut, then, to even things up, the
cost OF living should take approx
Hlately so per cent cut; lumber 200
per cent cut. material IT'S per cent
cut and real estate probably 35 per
per cent cut.