The Cotton Factory Times. — 1901-06-21 (Manchester, Greater Manchester, England)

NOTES BY THE WAY.  BY SCRUTATOR.  Probably at no period has public interest been so centred on the question of "slave-driving," or task work, in weaving sheds as at the present time. Cases of suicide from such a cause are by no means uncommon, and probably the Darwen coroner's remarks may do a world of good. We must not jump to the conclusion that overlookers generally are so keen after their "poundage " as to unduly "drive" the weavers under their charge; but there are, unfortunately, among them many men whose only consideration is "self,'' and they make no allowances for physical weakness, natural inaptitude, difficult material, or any of the other drawbacks to a weaver's output ; hence, they make the lives of many poor girls a "hell upon earth." This is more frequently  the case where the weavers are non-unionists, for while some of these overlookers do not fear the weavers in the shed, they mast have some dread of the Weavers' Union. Many an overbearing tackler who rules supreme to-day could be hunted from his position in a week if his uafortunate underlings had only the sense to join the union, and invoke its aid against him.  Somuch for the bullies. But there are another class of men, who do not drive the weavers for the sake of increasing their own wages, but because they themselves are driven! The employer or manager bullies the overlooker because the output is not sufficient, and, of course, the overlooker pushes the weavers as a consequence, How the evil is to be remedied, goodness knows. Organisation can check it to a very great extent, but the cultivation of a little humanity on the part of many employers, managers, and overlookers would put an end to such lamentable affairs as that revealed last week.  Many people say, "Stop the poundage system! Pat overlookers on weekly wages!" That sounds feasible enough. But you will find many who are conversant with the weaving trade who will tell you that the abolition of the • poundage" system would reduce the weavers' wages, because many overlookers would not take the same pains to keep the looms going as when they themselves were on "piecework." I don't know what the feeling of the weavers generally is on the question, but I know that many hold the view above stated, and can quote cases in proof of their contention.  A writer in a Manchester evening paper rejoicing in the cognomen of "An old Subscriber" has a happy way of making ootton employers into "lily white" personages. In effect he asserts that they on their part have done everything in their power to arrange matters and prevent strikes. High-class flattery, isn't it? But this writer makes the fatal mistake of saying much the same thing in notes which appear under his own name in papers here and there. Therefore, as he discloses his official connection with the Cotton Spinners' Federation, one cannot expect anything else but that he would flatter his employers. I don't suppose some of his committee appreciate his "spice." I think silence would be golden in many instances, especially in cases where negotiations are proceeding. I give him the tip that such brieflets don't help to smooth matters.  In transferring members from one district to another there is often some difficulty between the members transferred and the district they have left. When such is the case it makes it awkward for the officials in the district where they have come to reside. A case in point occurred the other day. It appears that one of the family had been working at a weaving - out place, and had eighteen shillings due to her from the association in the district she had left as weaving-out pay. lam told that the officials of the district were made aware of the claim before leaving, and she got a promise that the amount would be sent on in due course. Notwithstanding that the local officials had been written to twice the money is said not to be forthconing. In consequence of this delay the family are hesitating whether to join the union in the district they have removed to. Of course the story is a little one-sided, and might be set right had I the explanation of the officials.  From the June issue of the American Fcderationist I learn that during May a textile workers' conference was held in Boston which was designated an international one, although only unions on the other Bide were represented. It is quite certain that the unions in England were not represented, nor had they been invited. If those who called the conference together really desire that the American textile workers shall join an international movement, they ought to join the representatives of the textile unions who met a year ago in Berlin, and who are to meet next year in Switzerland. Then they would be connected with a united movement which can be truly said to be 'international."  I notice from the same journal that the president of the American Federation of Labour recently settled a dispute in Connecticut, all the old hands going back to work and a number of concessions being made. This is really good news, and seems to me equivalent to the president of the General Federation of Trade Unions in England, say, being called in to settle a dispute. Possibly when the English Federation gets another 400,000 members in and a balance at the bank of a million of monet the president or secretary may find himself called upon to attempt to arrange disputes. On the other hand, it may be unnecessary tor disputes to take place, and should any friction arise between employers and workmen who are in the Federation, the matters in dispute may be referred to the pretd. dent of an employers' federation and the president of the workmen's federation to settle, without even I etoppnge.  Are.,044 roti.