The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-03-31
THE MINING DEADLOCK.

The persistence with which the coal
operators have refused to meet the
miners in conference may be based
on the best of reasons, but there are
grounds for suspicion that they sec
an opportunity to disrupt the national
organization. President Harrington
OF the Illinois district has been in a
state bordering on characterization for
some time. He now threatens to en-
ter into a separate contract with the
operators unless a national agreement
be reached.
The U. NJ. W A. Journal refers to
the situation as follows:
President Lewis has made it clear
to President harrington that state
conferences are contrary to the policy
of the union as laid down by the in
ternational convention. In the face
of this policy. which was unanimously
adopted by the delegates to the con-
ventiOn, ii is quite strange that Presi-
dent Harrington would even suggest
the holding of state conferences with
operators. The holding of state con-
ferences would destroy the joint inter-
state movement that has existed in
the central competitive field for
twenty-four years, and which the
union proposes to maintain Why
President Harrington should wish to
undertake or even suggest any move
that might help to break up the joint
Interstate movement IS difficult to
und erStand. Surely he knows as well
of such a policy would be to wipe out
the four-state plan, which the miners
worked so long and hard to establish.
Why does any one wish TO abolish it 3?
It would not be at all surprising to
hear coal operators declare in favor
of separate state conferences, for they
see in that idea a possible means of
weakening the union. But it is rather
surprising to find such a suggestion
coming from a district president.
Meanwhile, both sides are trying
their case in the public prints. The
issues on which the coal strike has
been called in the bituminous coal in
dustry. as summed up by J. ID. A.
Morrow. vice president of the National
Coal association, are:
The maintenance of a postwar
wage scale. as opposed to a reduction
of wages to the levels prevailing in the
non-union fields and in other indus
tries.
4 six-hour day and a five-day week
to give employment arbitrarily to an
excessive number OF miners, as op-
posed to an eight-hour day and six
day week, with supply and demand
fixing the number of employees.
a four-state basic joint scale agree
ment, under attack in the courts, as
opposed to agreements between local
groups OF miners and operators.
The maintenance of the check-off.
as opposed to its abolition.
In relation to the third item In the
above list the U. NJ. W. A Journal
says:
In declaring for the six-hour day
and five-day week, the coal miners
are not demanding more pay for iefs
work. Their position has been mis-
represented and misunderstood. In
stead of demanding six hours as a
maximum for a days work they are
asking that they be given a reason
able assurance that they will have
steady employment six hours a day
and five days a week.
They do not make living by work
ing eight hours a day six days n week
only part CT the time. but they be-
heve they could make a living if they
were steadily employed six hours a
day five days n week.
BY working six hours a day the
miners can easily produce more than
enough coal TO meet every demand
that the country could possibly make
for fuel. Why work eight hours when
3 job can be done in six hours?
To a rank outsider it might appear
that the solution OF the problem lies
in the employment of fewer miners.
Why should four men be employed
twenty-four hours to do a Job that
three men can do in twenty-four
hoursr