Evening star., 1939-07-15
Workers Alliance Official
Discusses w. p. A. Strike.
To the Editor OF The Star:

To the Editor Of The Star:
The Star, in its editorial on wv. P. A.
Violence" stated that, unless Organized
labor can offer some convincing reason
for reverting to the discredited pre-
vailing wage system-which it has failed
so far to do-Congress should refuse to
yield to it's demands"
That the provision is unpopular with
w. P. A. workers, and to organized labor,
Is obvious. That this provision for in
creasing skilled labor hours to 100 a
month is dangerous and vicious, I
believe, can easily be proved to those
who have the welfare of the unemployed
at heart.
To begin with, it is outrageous to ask
anybody, whether he is w. P. A.
worker or not, to work twice as long for
the same wages as he was used to
getting. This, in anybody's language, is
a stretch-out. The w. P. A. worker is
quite justified in feeling that he should
be paid for the skill and the training
that he brings to his job. He has every
right to protest being forced to act as
the agent for cutting wages in private
industry. He also has every right to
protest being placed in position where
work on w. P. A. becomes intolerable,
and where the temptation to undersell
union labor to private industry over
whelming The prevailing wage scale
was achieved only after many years of
bitter struggle and effort, and to see
this scale placed in jeopardy simply in
order to keep the unemployed working
day in and day out is not to be tolerated.
1t has been the accepted practice that
skilled workers should be paid the pre-
vailing union wage for the work they
did. It was not until this provision was
written into the bill that anybody took
the trouble to defend it. To say that q
man who has spent hundreds of dollars
learning to be draughtsman. or to be
teacher, should work for the same
hourly wages as laborer is to deny the
purpose of the entire labor struggle.
What are the reasons advanced for
this provision?
l. The 130-hour month provision
will keep the unemployed busy. On
that principle, then, any movement to
extend the hours in any industry would
be justified. 1t was the same argument
that was used against the efforts to get
the 10 and hour day.
2. Why should a man be allowed to
work 10 days month for his $74 and
then be permitted to scab on the out
side? To begin with, no person on
w. P. A. is permitted to earn altogether
more than $50 month; if he does, he is
dismissed from w. P. A. Unions can
protect their workers from scabs. and,
as long as they are content to do so
and since 1t is their problem, no out
slider need be concerned about 1t. And
If the man can work ON the outside
doing odd jobs that conflict with no
union, then why shouldn't he be per-
mitted to do so? Can any man raise a
family on STA month?
8. The unemployed are being pampered
If hard work is to be prescribed for that,
then it is discriminatory to single out
the poverty stricken unemployed, while
there are so many coupon clippers and
idle rich in circulation.
4. w. P. A. workers must not fight
the Government. Since it is the Gov
ernment which Is their employer and
since the Government has permitted an
injustice, then the only logical thing is
to convince the Government, Of which.
let no one forget, the unemployed are