New Ulm review., 1922-05-17

But the fact is that the mines are shut
down good part of the time, because
they work ntermittently, and the union
mines in a series OF years have not
averaged over 200 days, while the non
union mines seek to justify their lower
wage by claiming that they work close
to 800 days, which would produce prac-
tically the same result.
The real difficulty, however, lies in
the fact that the number Of days refers
to the number Of days that the mine
is open, and not necessarily to the
number OF days each miner is employed.
Furthermore the operators, even were
they willing to do so, obviously can
not guarantee to the miners any spe-
CITED number Of days work. This sitl
uation has been aggravated by the
fact that during 1921 the average work
ing days fell far below normal, averag-
ing probably about 1876 days, or less
than $1,000 per annum.
A solution Of this difficulty would
seem to lie in applying the ordinary
business principle Of employing miners
by the month, with the understanding
that they must be given months notice
if they are laid off. The monthly
mpensation they receive, whether or
not they are laid off incidentally during
the month, to be exactly l-12 Of the
annual standardized cost Of living
agreed upon. OF course this would
carry with it the obligation on the part
Of the miner to work by the month
and would mean that he forfeited his
months wages if he left his work be-
fore the month was up.
These suggestions apply to the .1day
men, The miners as already ex-
planned, are paid by the ton, but under
a system of this kind it is still more
difficult to work out solution which
will insure to the miner continuous
daily wage equal to the cost Of living.
And notwithstanding the operatives
preference for a tonnage basis, a prac-
tical solution of this problem appears
to lie in adjusting the miners compen-
sation on the basis of a monthly wage,
thus putting all the employees of the
mine under the same system. This
would of course involve abolishing the
tonnage system altogether, but would
standardize both the cost and the
wages upon mutually equitable basis.
In close connection with this ques-
tion is the disputed checking sys-
TEN. The unions demand that the
operators deduct the union dues of
each miner from his monthly wages
and pay it over to the union. The
operators with considerable logic con-
tend that there should be no obliga-
ton upon them to do the union S
bookkeeping and to supply them with
the sinews of war in the event Of a
strike. But the operators have them
selves established a checking system
under which they deduct from the
miners wages their state, county and
road taxes whether or not they are
citizens); the rent of the shacks; a
doctors charge Of So per month; a
charge of 3-4 per cent upon their
earnings for sharpening tools; their
store bills; and $50 per month for
death and accident insurance, despite
the existence of the Workman's Com
pensation Acts). They also deduct
various penalties, such as 81 per day
for every day the miner refuses to
work; 81 for the first offense, So for
the second, SIS for the third, when the
operator considers that the coal pro-
duced by the miner is unnecessarily
dirty, etc. The miners have offered to
withdraw their demand that the operat-
ors check out their union dues, pro-