The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1928-09-20
By l. AMTER

John l.. Lewis gave MIN perm1S-
sion to call the operators into ses-
sion in order to make Settlement, "
and therefore Lee Hall, district
president of District Six of the
United Mine Workers Union, invited
the coal operators to conference.
The coal operators. refused. Only
five were present, and no settlement
was effected. Lee Hall is very pa
tient, and although the Ohio Coal
Operators Association declared that
it would have no dealings with the
union, Hall was undaunted. Gov
ernor Donahey appealed to the op-
orators to do their utmost to bring
about peace for the industry that
was badly hit. The coal operators
did not blush-they remained
adamant.
Lee Hall called another confer
ence-the first one was only "pre-
liminary" one. Eight operators APP
peared at this conference, and mat
tiers proceeded so far that SUBJ
committee could be elected to work
out an agreement. It's findings are
out-and now "peace" has been
established in the coal industry of
Ohio.
What did the conference decide =?
It agreed upon a wage scale of SIS
day, and 70 cents ton. No COM
petitive scale, no sliding scale. The
agreement is for IS months, and,
during that time, the miners will
enjoy work and prosperity-and
peace. But will they?
Who are the coal operators who
attended the conference? They are
operators owning and operating IA
mines and employing 5000 men.
Some of the mines are wagon mines,
and, according to S. Horace Rob-
bins, president of the Ohio Coal OPP
orators Association, their tonnage
represents not more than one-half
of one per cent of the normal pro-
duction of the state" A fine rep
resentation for a settlement.
But what does this peace mean?
Can there be peace? There cannot
At least three important factors are
against it:
1. The naturalization of the in
dustry. Loading machinery is being
introduced into the big mines by the
big coal operators and is producing
coal more cheaply and efficiently.
Loading machines were installed
last winter near Cadiz, and are
proving effective. According to the
illinois Miner" loading machinery
in is large mines would produce
100000 tons of coal a year, a
larger amount than is produced to-
day in 435 mines, and would require
only $4,000 miners, displacing nearly
$4,000 miners!
Is this progressive feature of
naturalization TO be stopped? Will
the operators tolerate it? Should
the miners oppose it? The oper-
ators will not tolerate opposition,
the miners cannot oppose it--and
they should not. (How this aspect
of the question must be treated will
be dealt with later.)
But one thing is sure, the load
ing machine, which is expensive
and can be installed only by rich
companies, will ruin the competi-
ton of the small operator and nc
matter what agreement he has made
with the miners the agreement will
be null and void of its own accord
The small, inefficient mines will
close down-and the agreement will
die.
A S200,000,000 merger has beer
effected in West Virginia, the pur.
pose being to install the most mod.
crn methods of coal production anc
thereby produce coal economically
Will the small operators of centra
Ohio, with their hand labor, be able
to compete with the miners of West
Virginia, which will use loading ma
chinery to the greatest extent pos
sible? They will not, and will shut
down automatically, and the agree
ment will be of no account.
Q. Competition of West Virginia
The conditions for the workers il
West Virginia today are intolerable
Wages are low, the men work only
two or three days week. Viii
Ohio be able to compete, in face
of the competition of West Virginia
with or without the loading ma
chine? Will it be able to compete
with Kentucky? According to thu
department Of mines, West Virgini;
land Kentucky in the month Of Ma,