The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-09-13
TOPEKA STATE JOURNAL
Information Bureau
FREDERIC ,. HAsKIN. Director,
WaAIlington, d. Q.
WHO WON THE COAL STRIKE?

strike is heard en- every hand now
that the controversy which paralyzed
the great fuel Industry for five
months is at an end, temporarily
speaking. 1t may not be important,
and it may be difficult to give an an
swer that will stand unchaAenged,
but there is general and altogether
reasonable desire to know whether
the big fight was a draw or whether
the miners or the operators can claim
the victory
AS matters stand there was no de-
cision. In fact. there was no referee,
un,sFs President Harding may be said
to have occupied that unenviable po-
sition, and if the president was the
referee he has not seen fit to tell the
public what he thought as to the re-
suit.
1t is possible. however, to review
the causes of the strike, to state what
happened during the conflict and ia
approximate the situation now that 1t
is all over. That may shed some light
on the mooted question.
The miners thru their union had
lwage contracts or agreements which
expired March 81 last. The bitumin-
GUS operators declined to meet with
the representatives of the miners in
national conference to negotiate a
new agreement. The miners claimed
that this was in and of itself a VIOLA
| ton of the contract between the oper-
ators and Them The Natter claimed
that inasmuch as such An agreement
might be held to be a conspiracy in
violation of the antitrust law they
could not be expected to enter into
| a conference.
In the anthracite field the operators
| met with the miners to work out a
new contract covering wages and
working conditions, but no agreement
| was reached up to and including
March 81. Thereupon the miners in
both fields declined to go to work on
April l, and the strike was on. 1t
was not called a strike by the min
| ers, bot just as the rose would smell
as sweet if called by any other name
what happened-~in the. coal industry
| had all the effect of a strike, what
every anybody decided to call it,
| What Was At Issue.
The bituminous miners had not pre-
sented any demands as to the new
| wage contract, SO it can not be said
| that they struck against a wage re-
| duction. 1t was well known, however,
| that the operators were determined
that there should be a wage reduc-
/ ton, and that the miners were in
| sistent upon a continuance of the old
wage scale. The union was also de-
| termined that the check-off system
| should be perpetuated, while the OPP
ton. The check-off, be it remem-
bered, is the arrangement whereby the
union dues and fees are withheld from
| the miners pay by the operators and
turned over to the treasurer of the
| union.
In the anthracite branch of the coal
industry the miners demanded a wage
increase and asked for the establish
ment of the check-off system, which
has never prevailed in those, fields.
~ k-,,e
tended that there should be a wage re-
duction. There were other issues. but
! none of sufficient Importance to have
caused a strike or lockout.
Now as TO what transpired during
the strike it may be said tAat in the
bituminous mines production ceased
wherever the miners belonged to the
union and in some independent fields
the workers went out as evidence OF
their complete sympathy with the
strikers. The union miners held their
forces intact thruout the period of the
strike, and the only soIt coal that was
produced came from the non-union
mines. This amounted to from a5OO.-
600 to 100000 tons weekly as against
normal production or demand of
5000, coo to 100000 tons per week.
In the anthracite fields production
came to an absolute stop. Not all the
miners there belong to the union, but
the operators are closely organized,
they have always conducted their bust
ness on the basis of the agreement
with the union and none of them
would undertake to mine coal with in
dependent miners or strike breakers
There was no attempt to break the
strike and there was no Independents
or non-union production to meet or
partially meet the demand from con-
sumers.
Only One Serious Outbreak
For the most part there was little
lawlessness during the strike. The
one black blot was the Herrin mas
sacre, which is not to be discussed
now that the affair is before the
grand jury. There were some un-
seemly demonstrations in Pennsyl-
vania, but nothing happened that was
serious unless it be held with the
strikers that their rights of free
speech and free assemblage were in
vaded and that that is a serious mat
ter. In any event, it is not to be for
gotten that almost every coal mine
would be ruined within a compare
lively short period of time unless the
pumps were kept working and GER
tain other things done regularly, and
that the striking miners did in every
instance leave enough men on the job
to preserve coal properties. OF course,
in the. long run 1t was to their inter-
est to do this, but it was equally to the
interest OF the operators SO the miners
should be given due credit.
When the strike in the Nbituminous
field was called off, or rather when
the bituminous miners began to return
to work, it was as the result of an
agreement with certain of the oper-
ators that the old wage scale and
working agreement should be con-
tinVed until March 81 next and that
the check-off system aIko should conf
tinue where it had prevailed.
In the anthracite fields the old
agreement is resumed ana will be con-
tinued until August 81 next.
In neither field is there a wage re-
duction or a wage increase. The btu
minous miners did not ask for more
pay and it is well known that they
would have been glad to have ac-
copied a reduction of only 10. to Is
per cent last March had the matter
been settled then, and If they had not
been asked to Weld on other points