Evening star., 1946-10-20
Id. c. Hotels ExpIuin Stand

Following Is the teTt OF a
statement ON the hotel strike re-
leased last night by Joseph C..
McGarraghy, attorney for the
Hotel Association OF Washington:
Now that the hotel strike has
entered the second week, it seems
appropriate to clarity the status of
the dispute between management
and labor.
In the first place. it should be
understood that in these labor
negotiations, it is purely for the
convenience of both sides that the
union locals negotiate together with
the hotels having union contracts.
The Hotel Association of Washing
ton is not a party to the contract
negotiations. The hotels, although
all members of the association, sign
contracts individually, and I act in
these labor negotiations as attorney
for the hotels. This follows a pat
tern which has proved helpful to
both sides ever since the hotel en-
ployes have been represented by
the unions.
On August 81, 1916, the union
addressed letters to each of the in
dividual hotel managers stating that
it desired to negotiate a new agree
ment to be effective October l.,
1916. The hotels Immediately re-
sponded, suggesting a conference on
September 4 and also suggesting
that the union promptly furnish a
copy of its proposed changes.
The first conference was held on
September prior to which the
union submitted a proposed new
contract containing approximately
80 changes in the existing contract,
including changes in wages.
Discuss Changes.
The parties proceeded to series
of conferences in which the proposed
changes were discussed, some of
them agreed to, and others modified.
Near the end of September, when
the parties were unable to get to-
gether on wages, the Cancellation
Service of the Department Of Labor
was advised and invited to partici-
pate in the conferences. Several
subsequent meetings were held with
the conciliator present.
On October 4, the conciliator,
after hearing discussion on both
sides, came in with suggested COM
promise as to which he stated he
could not advance any economic
justification, but he merely felt that
it might serve as the basis for agree
ment
The union rejected the proposal
by adding eight additional items.
The hotels responded that in order
to make a wage offer for settlement
they had to know what the total cost
of the contract was going to be and,
therefore, that other cost items re-
quested by the union and not in
cluded in the wage scale would have
to be disposed of first.
Offer Wage Increase.
After some discussion, the union |
agreed to the elimination of these
cost items with the understanding
that the hotels would then make
their best wage offer for settlement.
The hotels then offered a wage in
crease of 212 cents an hour to tip |
ping employees and S cents an hour |
to non-tipping employees, the latter
constituting approximately 80 per
cent of the employees involved. This |
is not merely a matter of a few cents |
per hour increase. 1t was an offer !
that would have meant an addi-
tional million dollars to the next |
years payroll.
1t was an offer made for con-
tract, Notwithstanding the fact that
many classif1cations of employees had
already received wage increases
averaging 100 per cent over the
wages prevailing January l, 194l,
which is the date generally accepted
for the purpose of computing rises
IN the cost of living.
The hotels have made wage in
creases every year since 194l, costing |
a minimum of 81 ,000, 900 each year.
The wage rates in Washington
hotels on the average exceed those
in practically every city in the
country and the wages now paid are
in excess of those fixed by the Dis
trict of Columbia Minimum Wage
Board.
The union rejected the hotels
wage offer, but stated its willingness
to accept the wage increase en-
bodied in the conciliator's compro-