The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-08-12

in The Locomotive journal. The re-
suits are somewhat surprising.
Mr.. Bromley, beginning his nara
tive with the discussions between the
miners and the industrial committee
of the 7. U. G. in the early part of
the year, states that the miners have
"had no constructive propositions to
make of any sort or kind" This il
very odd. The miners constructive
propositions were put before the royal
commission. They involved the ma
tionalization of the mines and the
complete reorganization of the indus
try. They were greatly praised. at
the time in labor circles. Yet now.
presumably because that liberal poll
tician, Sir Herbert Samuel, does not
believe in naturalization. the leaders
of the Labor Party and the T. U. C.
have ceased even to mention the word
"Oh! no! we never mention it,
Its name is never heard;
Our lips are now forbid to speak
That once familiar word"
Mr.. Bromley admits that on Feb
ruary IL the miners leaders re-stated
their position and emphasized the
three points:
% No reduction in wages.
(2) No increase in hours.
(3) No interference with the prin-
ciple of national agreements.
He adds that at a joint meeting of
the industrial committee and the min
ers on February 10 it was decided
that pending the report Of the royal
commission, no new declaration of
policy could be made, but that, in the
meantime, the previous declaration in
support Of the miners should be re-
affirmed" But the official announce
ment issued on this occasion included
the following words:
"The attitude of the trade union
movement was made perfectly clear
last July, namely, that it would
stand grimly and unitedly against
any attempt further to degrade the
standard Of life in the coal fields.
There was to be no reduction of
wages, no increase in working hours,
and no interference with the prin-
clple of national agreement. That
is the position Of the trade union
movement today. A commune
cation embodying these decisions is
being sent to all the affiliated trade
unions"
The industrial committee, therefore,
did adopt the miners despised slogan.
It is unfortunate that Bromley should
omit to mention this not unimportant
fact.
A "Puerile Attitude!"
The royal commission issued it's re-
port on March 10. On April Is the
owners told the miners that there
would be heavy wage cuts at the end
of the month. On April the miners
met the industrial committee and, &C
cording to Bromley, asked the com
mittee to recommend the movement
to enable them to ensure: no reduc-
ton in wages, no increase in hours,
and no departure from national agree
ments." In reply, the committee
passed a resolution stating that It
Reafirms its previous declaration
in support of the miners efforts to
obtain an equitable settlement of
outstanding difficulties.
1t also recommended that negotia-
tons should be continued to reduce
points of difference to the smallest
possible dimensions.
The resolution was, perhaps, little
vague. At the same time it reaf-
firmed the previous declaration" Of
the committee. In other words, it
supported the slogan. Bromley now
suggests that the real meaning of this
resolution was that the miners would
be unwise to stand by their demands.
Without being a thought-re ader,
without knowing what reflections
were passing at the time thru the
minds Of Bromley and Thomas, II
Is impossible TO read such a mean
ing into the plain words Of a reso-
luton which says just the opposite.
On the following day the miners, at
a delegate conference, readopted their
three points. Bromley says that such
action was puerile.'
One wonders whether the miners
were told at the time that by adopt
ing policy which had already been
affirmed and reaffirmed by the
industrial committee and the ''trade
union movement" they were taking
up a puerlle attltudel
A few days later the owners an
nounced that they intended to nego-
tiate with the districts separately.
Bromley blames the miners for this.
He produces no evidence for such an
assertion. II would be surprising II
he had seeing that months previously
the owners had stated that wages
should be regulated by districts and
not nationally. Evidently the indus.
trial committee didn't think the min.
ers were at fault, for on April II Il
passed resolution throwing the
blame on the owners and adding that
ffTha oopav,afffaa ,altnwaNn. a.,