The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1941-04-03
Facing The Facts
With PHILIP PEARL

buck--or maybe they never stopped.
Anyhow they pulled nifty this
week by trying to alibi some Of their
own failures at the vast construction
project at Camp Meade, Md, on or
ganized labor. This huge cantonment,
where 10000 soldiers will be in train
| ing this summer, will cost 23,000,-
0C0, the Army says. That is about
| $4,0G0,000 more than the estimates.
| So, of course, they place the blame
on labor.
In order to make their alleged rev.
elations more dramatic, they set the
stage by calling in New York Times
reporter, sitting him down with three
or four Army officers and giving
him an exclusive story. 1t got two
column head on page one of the New
York Times which considered the
story so important that it devoted
five columns of space to it.
Well, we've been doing a bit of in
terviewing ourselves and we have dis
covered facts directly from the head
quarters of the unions involved which
are strikingly at variance with the
/ ftIily SlOIs plillIeu III IlS we"
York Times. So we are going to COM
pare the allegations with the facts
and show how the Army is again pass
ing the buck.
Army Initiates Figures
First Of all, the Army officers
charged that two unions-the locals
Of the Carpenters and Common La
borers in Baltimore-collected S400,-
600 in initiation fees from men who
were put to work on the closed-shop
project. That figure is a viciously
gross exaggeration. Since the unions
placed receipts from initiation fees
from this and other projects into
their general fund, it would require
weeks for auditing to get the exact
figures. But the representative Of the
Carpenters Union told US the amount
received by his union totaled between
100000 and S125,00O. The repre-
sentative Of the Common Laborers
estimated the receipts of that union
, were 900 at a maximum. Thus the
, amount so generally fixed by the
Army officers is cut at least in half.
remembered. This money was not add
ed to the cost Of the project. 1t was
, collected from the workers who joined
| the unions. And they got more than
{ their moneys worth because the es-
? tablished union pay rates which they
received were perhaps twice as high
as they could have earned on a scab
job. The initiation fee of the Car
penters was $50, plus $3.50 in extra
e charges. The Common Laborers' fee
: was S25. The men were allowed to
5 make a small down payment and pay
r the rest out of their wages. If they
= were fired because of incompetence,
0 the money was refunded. These fees
: are the regular initiation fees charged
1 by these unions. The men who joined
a the unions were not asked to pay ex-
5 cessive sums. The money they paid
q into the unions still belongs to them
as union members. They have an
equity in the union treasures and the
4 money will be used in the future to
| protect them in times of need. What's
| wrong with that?
II Army Protected Inefficiency
II The Army officers also said some
| thing about Sears Roebuck" carpen-
ters. They charged incompetent men
! were put to work and labor efficiency
- was only at a 90 to So per cent level.
They said the Carpenters local sup
piled only 200 of its own men and
thousands of others were hired as they
applied, whether they knew the job or
not.
The facts are entirely different. The
local supplied 500 Of its own men. It's
representatives sent out S. o. S. calls
to practically every other Carpenter
local in the country, all the way to
Maine, Texas and the State of Wash
ington. 4 total Of 800 union carpen-
ters responded to these appeals. Only
about 1900 non-union men were taken
IN as new members by the union on
this lob. And these were admitted
on a probationary basis on the insist
ance of the Army which was anxious
to complete the project as soon as pos
sible. Several thousand additional
carpenters were hired but never join
ed the union because the Army bar
red business agents from the job. II
these men were incompetent it certain
ly is no responsibility of the Carpen-
.ers' Union.
The Army officers also said some
thing about strikes. They mentioned
a one-day roofers' strike. That strike
occurred on an entirely different pro-
ject. They alleged there was three
day strike Of the carpenters because
of a mix-up on overtime pay. This
strike losted only one working day. 1t
was the fault of the Army officers in
charge Of the project and Under-Sec-
retary of War Patterson publicly told
them so when he issued orders that
the union rates Of overtime be paid.
Now, of course, the payment of
overtime did increase the cost of the
project somewhat. Whose fault was
that? The Army did the insisting on
overtime because they wanted speed.
Nothing was said about politics by