The times-news. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1927-current, 1933-07-27
HOME OWNERSHIP FOR TEXTILE
OPERATIVES

The movement which is under discussion
in the South to promote the ownership OF
homes by textile operatives will strike sew
eral difficulties when the time comes to
put it into practical operation. For exam
pie, the houses in the average cotton mill
village in the South are rented to opera
tiyes for less than the cost of ownership.
Interest on the investment, repairs, lnsur-
ance and taxes would cost an owner more
than house rent. In fact, in majority OF
cases, insurance and taxes would amount
10 more than the rent the operative pays
for house.
There are other advantages of the COM
pany-owned system which the mill work
ers will not overlook. Living IN company
owned houses, they get water, electric cur
rent and fuel for less than market prices
that is, for less than the prices paid by
other citizens-for the reason that these
services and commodities are supplied in a
Wholesale way by the mill owners and
charged to operatives at wholesale prices
The cOmpany-owned system of housing
is not unpopular among textile operatives;
for these and other reasons. The system is
in general use for the reason that it meets
with the approval of the workers. 1t has.
been an indispensable system in the South
for the reason that workers were unable to-
finance the owning of homes. 1t has been
absolutely necessary for the mill owners to
provide homes for the workers..
Another reason for the popularity of the
company-Owned housing system is the fact
that textile operatives in the South have
the moving habit. Moving from one mill to.
another is a habit with thousands of mill
workers. Home ownership would tie them
to a mill community. They desire to be in
position to move at any time. This would
not be possible if they owned homes, as the
big question of disposition of real estate
would confront them in that case.
No doubt there are advantages in COM
pany-owned mill villages for the mill own
ers, but it is doubtful if these will be con-
sidered sufficient by the mill owners to
Justify opposition to home ownership by
the operatives, if the operatives can be III
terested in owning homes Control over the
mill village is probably the principal adj
vantage held by the mill owners under the
prevailing system. 1t enables them to keep
undesirable people out of village and to
exercise control which would not be posi-
bic if a village was composed of families
owning their own homes. Ownership OF
mill houses, hoover, costs each mill hard
cash every month; it adds to the responsi.
bilitieS and burdens of the mill manage.
ment. No doubt the mills would be willing
to save the cash and shift the burdens te
the operatives.
The Times-News doubts that there is {
mill management in the Carolinas that doe!
rot thoroughly appreciate the advantage!
and the value of home ownership. Mil
owners, like other good citizens, believe IL
the home. They know that home owner
ship would stabilize labor conditions among
textile operatives. They know, also, that
the real test of the proposal will come wher
it is put up to the workers. The mills can
not give homes to their operatives. The
cost would be prohibitive When the CD
eratives are faced with the problem o-
buying and paying for homes, what will b.
their response? Will they be willing tt
meet the cost of owning homes? Win they