Columbia ^^uiber^it;> mtbfdrttpof^ftogark LI B R A RY THE SELIGMAN LIBRARY OF ECONOMICS PURCHASED BY THE LnSTIVERSITY 1929 DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE n CLOAK MAKERS’ STRIKE ISSUED BY THE ^OAK, SUIT AND SKIRT MANUFACTURERS’ PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/cloakmakersstrik01cloa MANUFACTURERS’ APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC. TO THE PUBLIC : New York, July 11, 1910. d One of the most important industries in our countr}' is the manufacture of ladies’ and misses’ garments, in which are employed over one hundred and twenty-five thousand people. The production in the United States is about two hundred and fifty million dollars, of which one hundred and eighty million is produced in New York City. Many millions of dollars are invested. Many employers have by diligence risen rom the ranks. We challenge inspection of our shops for any evidence of unsanitary conditions. We believe our em- ployees are well paid and well treated. Wages have increased proportionately with other in dustries, and even in spite of unfavorable business conditions we are willing to adjust any diflferences that may exist as to wages. We ask for nothing but fair play. If there be grievances between any shop employer and the workers in his shop, we do not see why they cannot be adjusted without resorting to a general strike. Why those who have earnestly striven to make their shops sanitary, and their employees satisfied, should suffer for those who lag behind we cannot comprehend. But if there be grievances, we will undertake to use our efforts toward securing the redress of them. Without complaint, without submitting any grievances, our employees have left their posts by order of their Union. Loyalty to the Lmion has led many to forget their loyalty to us. But in the main, fear of ostracism and the threat of violence has led many employees to leave their positions for idleness, and, we fear, in many instances, misery. For what reason these orders have been given we have yet to learn. If it be to begin an organized effort to control our business, to dictate the running of our shops, to exclude those who do not care to join a union from earning an honest livelihood, then we fear the fight is to be a bitter and long one. For to surrender is to surrender our own independence and the independence of those who wish to remain independent of union dictation. We are quite prepared to go down in ruin if we are to accept as the only alternative rule of our factories by the union. We do not mean by this that we shall exclude union labor from our shops. We pro- pose, however, to employ our operatives for their ability, regardless of their affiliation with the union. We believe we can man our factories with employees who are satisfied with their situa- tions and with others who are anxious and ready to work. The law gives us this right — gives them the right to earn their living without interference, just as it gives our employees the right to strike if they care to. We note the word of caution given to the strikers to refrain from violence. We hope they will heed it. But the riot this morning on West 26th street, we fear, does not show that they have taken the warning to heart. In past strikes in our trade, to quote from the language of a Supreme Court Justice : “Methods have been used that are un-American, intolerable, and abhor- rent to all idea of personal liberty, and in defiance of the right of the individuals to determine for himself under what conditions he prefers to labor.’’ ^ We hope no such methods will be used in this strike. If they are not used we are confi- dent of the outcome. We believe each shop can adjust its legitimate grievances, and that the general strike will fall of its own weight. We shall endeavor to protect our property, and to protect those of our workmen who desire to remain at work. We expect in this co-operation of the officers of the law and the public. We have given pledge ourselves to observe the law, and will discipline rigorously any member of our organization who violates it. All that we ask is that there be a fair discussion of any grievances that may exist, that we be not called upon to surrender our factories to outside management, and that peace and order prevail while the strike is on. The Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers Protective As.sociation. 626874 1 I THE DEMAND OF THE UNION. INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS’ UNION. AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. 11 WAVERLY PLACE ABRAHAM ROSENBERG, JOHN A. DYCHE, GENERAL PRESIDENT GENERAL SEC.-TREAS. New York, N. Y., July 5th, 1910. « GENTLEMEN Enclosed you will find a copy of agreement embodying the demands of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union of New York. Our settlement headquarters are at Hotel Victoria, Eifth Avenue and 27th Street, ( Room 228) Tel. 1690 Madison Sq. Very truly yours, ALEXANDER BLOCH. Chairman Settlement Committee. 2 with The Joint Board of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Unions of New York AGREEMENT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made by and between composing the Firm of having its business at in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, party of the first part, hereinafter called the Firm, and THE JOINT BOARD of the CLOAK AND SKIRT MAK- ERS’ UNIONS as attorney-in-fact for the following Locals of the INTERNATIONAL LADIES’ GAR- MENT WORKERS’ UNION, namely: Cloak Operators’ Union, No. 1 ; Cloak and Suit Tailors, No. 9 ; Amal- gamated Ladies’ Garment Cutters’ Association, No. 10; Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union, of Brownsville, No. 11; New York Reefer Makers’ Union, No. 17 ; Skirt Makers’ Union, No. 23 ; Cloak and Skirt Pressers’ Lhiion, No. 35 ; Button-Hole Makers’ Union, of New York, Local No. 64; Cloak and Suit Pressers of Brownsville, No. 68, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Union, to wit: In consideration of the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar, each to the other in hand paid before the signing of this agreement, and in consideration of the mutual promises herein made, the parties hereto agree as follows: I. The said Firm hereby engages the Union to per- form all the tailoring, operating, pressing, finishing, cut- ting and button-hole making work required to be done by the Firm in its cloak and suit business, during the period commencing with the date of this agreement and terminating one year from date, and the Union agrees to perform said work in a good and workmanlike manner. H. During the continuance of this agreement, op- erators shall be paid in accordance with the annexed price list. The finishers shall be paid The following is the scale of wages for week hands : Cutters not less than $26.00 per week. Skirt cutters not less than $22.00 per week. Jacket pressers not less than $22.00 per week. Under pressers not less than $18.00 per week. Skirt pressers not less than $20.00 per week. Skirt under pressers not less than $16.00 per week. 626874 ^ Piece pressers not less than $14.00 per week. Reefer pressers not less than $18.00 per week. Reefer under pressers not less than $14.00 per week. Sample makers not less than $24.00 per week. Skirt makers not less than $24.00 per week. Skirt basters not less than $15.00 per week. Skirt finishers not less than $12.00 per week. Button-hole makers not less than $1.10 per hundred button-holes. III. A working week shall consist of 48 hours in six working days. The following shall be the regular hours of labor: On the first five working days of the week, from 8 A. M. to 12 noon, from 12:45 P. M. to 5:30 P. M. Saturday, from 8 A. M. to 12:15 P. M. IV. No overtime work shall be permitted between the 15th day of November and the 15th day of January, and during the months of June and July. During the rest of the year employees may be required to work overtime provided all employees of the firm, as well as all the em- ployees of the outside contractors of the firm, are en- gaged to the full capacity of the factories. No overtime work shall be permitted on Saturday nor on any day for more than two and a half hours, nor before 8 A. M. or after 8 P. M. For overtime work the employee shall re- ceive double the usual pay. V. No contracting or sub-contracting shall be per- mitted by the firm inside of its factory, and no operator or finisher shall employ more than one helper. VI. No sub-division or section work shall be per- mitted in operating or finishing. VII. No employee shall be required to work on any of the ten legal holidays. All legal holidays shall be paid for. The refraining from work on the first of May celebration shall not be considered a breach of this contract. VIII. The firm is to furnish to all employees, free of charge, sewing machines driven by electric power, which are to be in charge of competent machinists, and all requisites for work, such as needles, cotton, silk, oil, straps, etc. IX. The firm may employ outside contractors, pro- vided the contractors employ members of the Union. The firm agrees to pay the wages of any and all of the employees of its contractors, should any of its contractors fail to pay said wages in full. X. Work shall be distributed equally between the in- side employees and those working for outside contractors, and equally among the inside employees as far as practicable. 4 XL At the commencement of the season, after prices have been adjusted, the firm shall pay to its employees the difference in prices for work on new styles made prior to the adjustment. A shop committee shall, to- gether with the firm, adjust prices on new styles, ref- erence to be had to previous price list. XII. The Union shall have the privilege to have a shop delegate selected by the persons employed in the factory, who is to act as their representative in their dealings with the firm. A duly authorized officer or rep- resentative of the Union shall have free access to the factory, for the purpose of communicating with the em- ployees. Such visits shall not interfere with or disturb the work of the employees. XIII. No work shall be given to employees to be done at their homes. XIV. The Union shall be credited with all the work performed by its several members, and payment to its members shall be considered payment to the Union, pro- vided payment is made in accordance with this agreement. XV. Only members of the respective locals above named shall be employed by the firm to do the said work. XVI. In case of any dispute, there shall be no stop- page of work until the matter in dispute shall have been settled by arbitration, which must take place within three days after the arising of the dispute. XVII. Wages shall be paid in cash, to piece workers on each Monday for work done up to previous Saturday, to week workers on Saturdays. XVIII. The firm is not to enter into individual argee- ments with any of its said employees, nor shall any cash or other form of security be accepted from them. XIX. Neither the firm, nor any of its contractors, shall require any of its employees (nor shall any em- ployee be permitted) to do work on orders placed by firms or contractors whose employees are on strike in the City of New York or elsewhere, nor shall the firm sell any goods to such firms. 5 THE PLEDGE SIGNED BY EACH MEMBER OF OUR ASSOCIATION. (a) That to the utmost of his ability, with the assistance of the Executive Committee, he will endeavor to adjust all shop grievances his employees may have ; (b) That if unsanitary conditions in his factory exist, he will, to the utmost of his ability, seek to improve them ; (c) That he will not join or enter into any agreement whatsoever with any organization which shall directly or indirectly involve the surrender of the control and manage- ment of his factory or sub-factories to any set or group of men, whether calling them- selves a “union” or anything else : (d) That he will zealously endeavor to preserve peace in the continuance of his business; and join with other members similarly situated in providing protection against physi- cal violence to those ready and willing to work in our factories ; (e) To contribute his full share towards the expenses. 6 From the New York Times, Saturday, July i6, iqto. LIKE THE PADRONE SYSTEM. According to the Executive Committee of the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manu- facturers’ Association, the employees of which are on strike for higher wages and shorter hours, the union demands the signatures of the employers to the following proposed agreement before the employees return to work ; The said firm hereby engages the union to perform all the tailoring, operating, pressing, finishing', cutting and buttonhole making work required by the firm commencing with the date of this agreement and terminating one year from date, and the union agrees to perform said work in a good and workmanlike manner. The union, in short, is the padrone. The skilled cloakmakers are to be as docile, servile and lacking in individuality as any gang of Italian laborers, distinguished from each other by numbers instead of names. The pendulum of labor reform seems to have swung full circle. In the bad old days the employer fixed the wage, and undoubtedly he fixed it as low as he dared. There was no established standard for any kind of employment. Wages were a matter of higgling, and the workman was com- pelled to accept what he could get. Nobody doubts the beneficent results of the organization of labor. The unions were a natural growth and they served a good purpose. Their benevolent intention is not doubted now. But the Cloakmakers’ Union is not the only one which totally suppresses the indi- viduality of its members. It is the “party of the second part” in their con- tracts. It orders them to go to work, or to cease work, at its own will. It forbids recognition of any individual by an employer. The competent must sustain the incompetent. The union will agree “to perform the work in a good, workmanlike manner." The workman of unusual skill gets no reward other than that of the one of most ordinary ability. The proposed agreement of the Cloakmakers’ Union is a reminder of the padrone system. 7 CORRESPONDENCE WITH STATE BOARD OF ARBITRATION. State of New York. Department of Labor Bureau of Mediation and Arbitration Albany, Sub-Office 114 East 28th Street N. Y. City Mr. a. E. Lefcourt, Chairman, The Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers Protective Assn. Hoffman House, New York City. Dear Sir : July 15, 1910. I respectfully submit for your consideration the following letter received by me from Hon. John Lundrigan, Chairman, New York State Board of Meditation and Arbitration ; With reference to the strike in the cloak and ladies’ suit making industry now existing in the Metropolitan District, a somewhat superficial investigation leads me to believe that this industry is practically suspended in Greater New York and that approximately 70,000 em- ployees are idle as a result thereof. I note your duplicate letter of July 8th, to the representatives of the employers and the work people involved in which you recommend that a conference committee be appointed. I understand that this time that no reply has been received from the employers, and that the reply from the employees simply indicates a willingness to confer but puts the responsibility for arrangement on our bureau. In view of the large interests involved and in order that the position of all the parties be clearly defined, you are instructed to make further formal request that a committee (the smaller the number the better) with executive power be selected forthwith by each of the parties involved, i. e. ; the employers generally, and the employees generally, and that a joint meeting of such committees be had, not later than Tuesday, the 19th, inst., for the purpose of a general discussion of the questions involved in this dispute, and with the object of possibly affecting a settlement. Advise each of the parties that this Bureau will arrange for this conference, if desired, and will be represented therein, if agreeable to each of the participants. Also request answers in writing, to the suggestions and recommendations made herein or hereafter. It is desired that you reply to this communication in writing, at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours. Signed M. J. REAGAN, Industrial IMeditator. 8 New York, July 15, 1910. M. J. Reagan, Esq., Industrial Mediator, Department of Labor, State of New York. Dear Sir: Your communication under date of the 15th of July, addressed to me as chairman of the Cloak, Suit & Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association, is received. It seems to be based upon misapprehen- sion. No previous suggestion for conference has been received from your department by me or by any of- ficer of this association. At the present time we have no definite knowledge of the issues involved in the strike. All that we know is that our workingmen have left the shops and are on strike. The manufacturers have always been ready to adjust the legitimate grievances of any of their em- ployees, and the attitude of the employers generally is stated in the appeal to the public, copy of which we hand you herewith. If your department desires to use its good offices in the interest of the public, it is our judgment that you should secure from the em- ployees a statement of their grievances. We assure you and the public that if any of these grievances be well-founded we stand ready to adjust them. The pledge of our members contains the following, which each member has signed: “That to the utmost of his ability, with the assistance of the Executive Committee, he will endeavor to ad- just all shop grievances his employees may have.” “That if unsanitary conditions in his factory exists, he will to the utmost of his ability seek to improve them.” We stand ready so soon as you can secure a state- ment of any of these grievances to participate in con- ference with you or with any committee representing our employees with a view to securing an adjustment. We deem it but fair, however, that we should call your attention immediately to one of the limitations of our organization which every member of our associa- tion has signed. The pledge contains the following: “That he will not join or enter into any agreement whatsoever with any organization which shall directly or indirectly involve the surrender of the control and management of his factory or sub-factories to any set or group of men whether calling themselves a ‘union’ or anything else.” , Very truly yours, THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, A. E. Lefcourt, Chairman. 9 New York, July 18th, 1910. John Lundrigan, Chairman Bureau of Meditation and Arbitration, Department of Labor, Albany, N. Y. Dear Sir : We have received at the hands of your representative, Mr. Reagan, a printed copy of the paper endorsed “with the Joint Board of the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Makers’ Union.” This document was accompanied with an oral statement to the effect that the paper was a statement of our employees’ “grievances” submitted in accordance with the suggestions contained in our letter to you of the 15th inst. We do not find in this paper any statement of grievances. We find upon inspection that it is the identical printed form which, shortly after our employees left the shops, came to each of our members with the following most insolent printed letter : “Gentlemen : — Enclosed you will please find a copy of agreement embodying the de- mands of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Unions of New York. Chir settlement headquarters are at Hotel Victoria, Fifth Avenue and 27th Street, (Room 228), Tel. 1690 Madison Square. Very truly yours, (Signed), ALEXANDER BLOCH, Chairman Settlement Committee.” In short, the paper presents not the grievances of our employees but the demands of the Union. The first paragraph contains the following ; “The said firm hereby engages the Union to perform all the tailoring, operating, press- ing, finishing, cutting and button-hole making work required to be done by the firm in its cloak and suit business, during the period commencing with the date of this agreement and terminating one year from date, and the Union agrees to perform said work in a good and workmanlike manner.” Other paragraphs make clear that if it be signed the Union is in future to be our sole employee, and the shop delegate master of our factories. We do not object to having union men in our industry. We have employed them before. We do object, however, to any contract that consummates a conspiracy to prevent every non-member of the union from seeking employment in our industry. We do object to turning over our shops to the man- agement of outsiders. We do object to the Padrone System that this contract seeks to introduce. Of course, we cannot enter into any discussion of such a document. Y'e would not be worthy of the name of American manufacturers if we did. We cannot enter into any discussion of a plan to violate the penal laws of our State and Country. This contract violates both. It creates a conspiracy under both our State and Federal Laws, in restraint of trade, and is precisely of the character of L’^nion domination condemned by the Supreme Court of the United States. It would destroy our freedom, as well as the freedom of every worker in our industry who does not care to belong to the Union. You would not ask us to discuss whether or not we should join in committing murder, for murder is a crime, and crime can neither be arbitrated nor mediated. Likewise, you must not ask us to discuss whether or not we should violate the laws against conspiracy in re- straint of trade. We decline to participate in such a discussion. Again, as we pointed out to you in our previous communication, the pledge of our members precludes us from discussing any contract which involves, as this one does, the surrender of our shops to outsiders. We still stand ready to discuss with you Griez'ances, so soon as employees present them in form to be discussed. We await the presentation of such Grievances. The refusal on our part to sign the document proposed cannot be con- sidered a Grievance. The demand that we do sign it does constitute a grievance — a grievance on our part, one that we share in common with every employer of labor throughout the country who respects the freedom guaranteed by our constitution. Very truly yours. The Executive Committee. A. E. lefcourt. Chairman. 10 July 18, 1910. Mr. a. E. Lefcourt, 27 W. 24th St., City. Dear Sir: — It having been agreed as per suggestion at last evening’s conference that a committee of ten be selected with a like committee of your organization, everything is in readiness for the supposed conference. Enclosed you will find a duplicate copy of the statement issued to the presses. Yours very truly. (Signed) Alexander Bloch, Chairman Settlement Committee. 11 RESOLUTION ADOPTED AS TO WAIVER OF CLOSED SHOP AT THE MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CLOAK, SUIT AND SKIRT MANUFACTURERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION. JULY tsth, mo UfSOlUpi: that no conference in reference to settling this strike be held with any representative of the employees, until they present in writing a statement of grievances to be discussed at such conference, which statement shall contain a waiver of any demand for the closed shop. 12 I July 18, 1910. Mr. Alexander Bloch, . Chairman Settlement Committee, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, 11 Waverly Place, City. Dear Sir: — Your letter of the 18th, inst., together with a statement enclosed, was laid before the Executive Committee of the Association, of which I am President, to-day. I beg to en- close herewith a copy of the resolution adopted at the meeting, together with a copy of the letter sent this day to the Chairman of the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration. Very truly yours, (Signed) A. E. Lefcourt. 13 July 19, 1910. Mr. a. E. Lefcoukt, President, Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association. Dear Sir : — Your letter and resolution of July 18th at hand. Your letter requests a statement of grievances, your resolution contains a condition of a waiver of any demand for the closed shop. The letter of your association appears to us uncalled for, but in the interest of the great cause we represent, we overlook that, and in reply as to grievances, we would say ; some of the grievances are inadequate wages, long hours, overtime, home-work, unequal distribution of work, evils of the contract system, and any and all matters that the employees desire to present for the good and welfare of the entire trade. As to a waiver upon any particular point, we say, if that should be done either by us or by your association it would limit, and hinder the work of any conference that would make all efforts for a settlement of the pending difficulty existing in the cloak and skirt trade absolutely ineffectual. A conference representing the manufacturers and their employees to confer on all matters that may be of interest to the trade, we will willingly take part in, at any time and place that you may suggest, and we shall enter upon the work of such a conference with no object in view except, in absolute good faith to serve the best interest of all concerned. Hoping to receive an early and favorable reply, we remain, for the cloak and skirt makers of New York City, Yours very respectfully. John B. Lennon. Treasurer American Federation of Labor. Alex.vnder Bloch, Chairman Settlement Committee, Victoria Hotel, Room 228. 14 New York^ July 20, 1910. Mr. Alexander Bloch, Chairman Settlement Committee, (Room 228) Victoria Hotel, City. John B. Lennon, Esq., Treasurer American Federation of Labor. Gentlemen : I am directed by the Executive Committee to reply to your letter of the 19th inst., as follows : According to your letter the following is a statement of the grievances to be discussed at the conference : A — Inadequate wages. B — Long hours. C — Overtime. D — Home zvork. E — Unequal distribution of work. F — Evils of the contraet system. Although these are stated in very general terms, we think they furnish very sufficient basis for the beginning of a conference. They could be made more definite as the conference proceeds. The clause in your letter “and any and all matters that the employees desire to present for the good and welfare of the entire trade”, we think is too vague and too general, and would permit of conference into infinity. If there be any other grievances you have in mind in addition to the above specific grievances, you may add them before we enter into a conference. You say in your letter “As to a waiver upon any particular point, we say if that should be done either by us or by your association, it would limit and hinder the work of any con- ference that would make all efforts toward a settlement of a pending- difficulty existing in the cloak and suit trade absolutely ineffectual. Apparentl}- you would have us recede from the position already communicated to you both orally and in writing. This we cannot do. Not only are we prohibited by our con- stitution and by-laws, but at a meeting of our Association held last evening, the entire As- sociation unanimously directed the Executive Committee to stand by this decision. You complain of the language of the communication we have sent to you, but apparently, we have not made clear to you our position with reference to a conference. We already know' that we cannot come to any understanding w'ith you if you are not prepared to recede from the position you have already taken in official statements to the Press and in your communica- tions with the Department of Mediation. The questions are simple: — If w'e should finally adjust in conference every grievance covered by the topics mentioned in your letter, A — Would you demand recognition of the Union ? B — Would you demand the exclusion of non-union labor from our shops ? C — Would you demand that we sign a contract with the Union? If any of these questions is answered in the affirmative, then a conference to end the strike w’ill be futile. The decision of the other matters must await the determination of the strike. The questions are put to you straight for w'ardly and simply. They permit a simple answer. If you cannot answer them, then the conference with our employees can only result in their misunderstanding and their deception and will but add to their ultimate misery. 15 In some of your official statements you charge us with a “conspiracy to annihilate the Union”. Nothing could be further from the fact. We are concerned not with the destruc- tion of the Union but with our own business. We do not have to destroy the Union in order to exist, but if we are to sign such a contract as your Union proposes, we would be inviting our own destruction. We cannot close our shops to those who do not care to join your Union. This is un-American and unfair. We must remind you again, however, that we did not lock out our employees. They left of their own accord. If they have any grievances, we stand ready to adjust them, but we cannot invite our own self-destruction by considering for a moment the surrender of our shops to any organization. Already there has been misunderstanding of the purpose of this correspondence. Please answer the three questions put in this letter specifically, definitely and clearly. If they are answered, in the negative the conference can proceed at once. Very truly yours, A. E. LEFCOURT, Chairman. For the Executive Committee. Mr. A. E. Lefcourt, July 20, 1910. Chairman Executive Committee, Cloak and Suit Manufacturers’ Protective Association. Dear Sir : Your letter of July 20, 1910, addressed to Air. Alexander Dloch and John B. Lennon, has been duly received. In reply we desire to say, on behalf of the Cloak and Skirt Alakers’ Unions, that apparent!}' our position is misunderstood and misinterpreted by your associa- tion. There is no desire on the part of the organized Cloak and Skirtmakers to in any way injure vour business interests. The very opposite is in fact the case, as we have a full understanding of the fact that if your business is destroyed, our people are at least tem- poraril}' without employment. We have endeavored to be reasonable and open to convic- tion, and while we cannot enter upon a conference setting aside in advance anything that we believe to be of interest to the people we represent, it is at the same time true that if we can be shown in a conference that we have made any demands which are not in harmony with the business interests of the Cloak and Suit Trade, we would have no hesitation in receding therefrom. Vour letter just received contains the statement that you already know that you cannot come to any understanding with us if we are not prepared to recede in advance from the position we have already taken upon several matters. These questions together with those we specified and any others that might come before the conference, we are prepared and are entirelv willing to give our very best consideration, and are open to conviction if the dis- cussion of the conference shows our position to be wrong. I sincerely trust that with this clear and straightforward explanation of our position that there will be no further difficulty in arranging a conference between representatives of the Organized Cloak & Skirt Makers and representatives of your association. We believe in organization not restricted to the employees alone, but in organization of the employers as well, and we stand ready with such ability as we possess to meet with you in conference and reach conclusions upon all matters that either side may present, which would promote the best interests of the trade. A'ours respectfully, (Signed) Alexander Bloch. (Signed) John B. Lennon. 17 ' New York, July 21, 1910. Alexander B^och & J. B. Lennon, Esqs. Victoria Hotel, New York City. Gentlemen : — Your letter of the 20th inst. in response to ours of the 20th inst. is received. The letter evades the three questions specifically put in our previous letter as follows : “If we should finally adjust in conference every grievance covered by the topics men- tioned in your letter “A — Would you demand recognition of the Union? “B — Would you demand the exclusion of non-union labor from our shops? “C — Would you demand that we sign a contract with the Union?” Unless you can answer these questions in the negative, further correspondence be- tween us is useless, and no conference to consider the grievances of our employees can take place. Yours very truly, A. E. LEFCOURT Chairman For the Executive Committee. 18 THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED FROM MR. BRANDEIS. Julius Henry Cohen, Esq., New York City. July 24, 1910. Dear Mr. Cohen — I enclose you herewith the proposal of the Joint Board of the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union of New York, signed by me as attorney, for conference, with a view to settlement of grievances. This paper is a copy of the proposal submitted to you this afternoon, embodied in the letter of authorization to me, signed by officials of the Union. All of these officers understand fully that under this proposal the closed shop is not a subject which can be discussed at the conference. Yours truly, (Signed) Louis D. Brandeis. P. S. — I also enclose, signed by the General Secretary, paper interpreting the clause about reinstatement of strikers. ( Signed ) * Louis D. Brandeis. The paper enclosed is this interpretation : In the proposal for conference submitted by Joint Board of the Cloak & Skirt Makers’ L’nion of New York to the Cloak and Skirt Manufacturers’ Association, dated July 24, 1910, the clause “In the event of such settlement, every employe, who participated in the strike to be reinstated, is to be deemed one of the subjects for discussion at the conference, and the Cloak and Skirt Manufacturers’ Association are not to be deemed to have assented to that provision by accepting a proposal for conference. (Signed) The Joint Board of the Cloak and Skirt Alakers’ Union of New York, By John A. Deutsch, General Secretary. • 19 The joint board of the Cloak and Skirt Makers Union of New York submits on behalf of the various affiliated locals, to the Cloak and Skirt Manufacturers Association, the following : — Our main grievances are : Low wages, unreasonable night work, work in tenement houses, the disregarding of holidays and Sundays, sub-contracting, discrimination against union men, the irregular pay- ment of wages, the extracting of security, the charging for material and electricity, and the blacklisting of active union men. To remedy these grievances it is in our opinion necessary to establish a living standard of wages, to regulate the hours of labor, to limit night work, to prevent work on holidays, to abolish all charges for electricity and appliances, to do away with tenement house work, to prevent discrimination, to provide for the regular payment of wages in cash both by manufac- turers and outside contractors, to do away with inside sub-contracting, to establish a permanent board of arbitration which is to settle grievances, the union and employers to be equally rep- resented on the board of arbitration, the appointment of shop committees and shop delegates. We are ready to enter into a discussion with you of these grievances and if a satisfactory adjustment of them is reached are prepared to recommend a settlement of the strike. In the event of such settlement every employee who participated in the strike to be reinstated, the terms of any settlement which may be reached to be reduced to writing and signed by both parties through their representatives. THE JOINT BOARD OF CLOAK AND SKIRT MAKERS UNION OF NEW YORK By Louis D. Brandeis, July 24th, 1910. Attorney. In the proposal for conference submitted by the Joint Board of Cloak and Skirt Makers Unions of New York to the Cloak and Skirt Manufacturers Association, dated July 24th, 1910, the clause “In the event of such settlement every employee who participated in the strike to be reinstated’’ is to be deemed one of the subjects for discussion at the conference. And the Cloak and Skirt Manufacturers Association are not to be deemed to have assented to that provision by accepting the proposal for a conference. THE JOINT BOARD OF THE CLOAK AND SKIRT MAKERS UNIONS OF NEW YORK By John A. Dyche, General Secretar}-. The original proposal submitted to Mr. Brandeis was signed as follows ; We, the undersigned, authorize Loyis (sic) D. Brandeis to present the above on behalf of the Union. Max Hyman, Chairman Law Committee. S. POLAKOFF J. Wolf S. Rabinowiz H. Kleiman Alex. Block, Chairman Settlement Com. Jesse S. Greenbekger John A. Dyche, G. S. T, Max Simof A. Mitchell. 20 ACCEPTANCE BY MR. COHEN. New York, July 27, 191C>. The Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association accepts the proposition signed by Louis D. Brandeis, as Attorney for The Joint Board of Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union of New York, dated July 24, 1910. The Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association. By JULIUS HENRY COHEN, J0V ' Attorney. 21 COPY OF TELEGRAM TO MR. BRANDEIS. Mr. Louis D. Brandeis, Boston, Mass. Dear Sir — As the attorneys respectively for the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union of Neiv York, and the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association, we ask you to kindly act as chairman of a conference between the two organizations, which will begin tomorrow morning. (Signed) IMeyer London. (Signed) Julius Henry Cohen. Dated, New York, July 27, 1910. 22 MINUTES Of joint conference between ten delegates of the joint board of the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Makers’ Unions and ten delegates of the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association, held in Room No. 5208, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Building, New York City, beginning Thursday, July 28, 1910. HON. LOUTS D. BRANDEIS, Chairman. Committee for the Comrdittee for the Manufacturers. Unions. E. A. Lefcourt, M. Silberman, M. M. SCHWARCZ, Max Meyer, Joseph Jonasson, Max Rubin, William Fishman, 1. Stern, Max Solomon, R. SODOWSKY. A. C. Rosenberg, J. A. Dyche, J. B. Lennon. Benjamin Schlessinger, J. Greenberger, S. POLAKOFF, H. Kleinman, Alex. Bloch, A. Baffa, Morris Siegman, JULIUS HENRY COHEN, Esq., Attorney for Manufacturers’ Committee. MEYER LONDON, Esq., Attorney for Unions’ Committee. MORNING SESSION. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, we have come together in a matter which we must all recognize is very serious, and an important business, not only to settle this strike, but to create a relation which will prevent similar strikes in the future. That work is one which, it seems to me, is approached in a spirit which makes the situation a very hopeful one, and I am sure from my conferences with counsel of both parties, and with individual members whom they represent, that those who are here are all here with that desire. Counsel have agreed, and I have approved of the order which may best be pursued to advance this conference. I understand that Mr. London, who is the Chairman representing the employees, will make a preliminary statement, and presumably Mr. Cohen, as representing the manu- facturers, will have some preliminary statement also to make in reply. After those statements are made, the specific questions — specific grievances, will be taken up in an order which has been agreed upon by the counsel as represent- ing the two parties, and perhaps it will be of interest to you to know that order. It is this : First, the question of the subject of electricity, or power and materials. Secondly, the question of work in tenement houses. Third, the exacting of security from employees. Fourth, the discrimination against union men. Fifth, blacklisting of active union men. Sixth, overtime and night work. Seventh, the question of holidays and Sundays. Eighth, the irregular payment of wages. Ninth, subcontracting. 23 Tenth, the claim of low wages. Eleventh, sanitary conditions, and Twelfth, the general method of enforcing agreements between the Association — the Manufacturers’ Association and the Unions. That, I believe, covers in a general way the various subjects that have been suggested. In respect to each one of these subjects there will be taken up the grievance and then the proposed remedy, and we shall see how far there is a difference of opinion between the two sides, and how that difference may be overcome. Unless there is some other suggestion, gentlemen — it has also been agreed that the hours at which this conference shall sit shall be from ten to one, and from two to five, and, of course, shall sit from day to day. It is the hope and expectation that without unduly hurrying the consideration, ail parties will co-operate to bring the conferences to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible. I think, gentlemen, that witli that preliminary statement we are ready now for the statement of Mr. Lennon as representing the Union. MR. LENNON : I only desire to make a very brief statement. In the first place, it is well known, I suppose, to everyone here lhat I am not a cloak maker. I was once a journeyman tailor, but perhaps I have forgotten the trade, as I have not plied it for some time. I desire to call the attention of the conference to a matter that we believe should be stated now. We represent here from 50,000 to 75,000 people wh.o are on a strike. As to the exact numbers, it is scarcely possible for anyone to ascertain what the number are exactly, though we hope to know very accurately before long. They are not only a large body of men and women, but they are, to a very great degree, untrained and undisciplined, and it is not an easy matter to reach a consensus of opinion and a determination of any particular thing with a great mass of people like that, as it is for you people, who only have 150 or 160, or 200, or whatever it may be, of the members of your association, which you have to con- sult. And it would therefore be necessary, under all the circumstances, in view of all the conditions that confront us, that the agreement, if one be reached — and I sincerely trust that it will — before it can be considered as absolutelv final, so far as we are concerned, we will have to take it back to our organization. WT believe it is right that that statement should be made now, and not at some later time, because if you had any expectations of something different, and were confronted with it at a later period, it would be perhaps exceedingly disappointing and not satisfactory, and we feel therefore that the statement should be made now. We also are as desirous, certainly, as the Chairman or anyone else can be, that all the expedition possible be had in carrying on this conference, and that we reach a determination of it just as speedily as that can possibly be attained. There are — well, I won’t say anything further now. I will stop with that. MR. COEIEN : At the very outset, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I v.'anl to express my personal gratification that we have gotten together around this table. It has been my hope, and, if I ma\- say so, my prayer, that the employees and employers could sit at the same table and discuss the difficulties, without feeling and with an earnest effort to arrive at some solution of the difficulties. I have had various talks with some of the representatives of the employees, and have had many talks with the employers. I think those with whom I have talked on that side of the table understand my point of view, and certainly the people on this side of the table understand my point of view. So far as I am personally con- cerned, I do not approach this problem as a problem of economics, as to how good a bargain can we get out of this situation, or how good a bargain you can get out 24 of n. In my judgment, we are dealing with a very big humane problem. W e have a problem of handling, as iMr. Lennon points out, allowing for all reasonable discounts, some 80,000 people. W'e have our own business problems, of course ; you are not interested in that, but we are ; but in addition to those business prob- lems, there is the big problem of how to treat justlv and fairly the 80,000 people who are in our industry, and still preserve our industry. There have been some things that may have been misunderstood, but there are some things that we cannot and will not surrender, and that, of course, involves the control of our own shops. We understand that you do not wish us to surrender that control. There has never been a time when we have not admitted that there were grievances that our employees have. Our difficulty has been in understanding and ascertaining pre- cisely what the grievances were, that we did not understand or had not yet learned to understand, and in finding the remedy for those grievances which we know to exist. I don’t know anything about the cloak business, except what I have learned in connection with this strike and one other strike. I am like iMr. Lennon, but I have had the training of my profession, and I know that the only way by which a situation can be cured is first to ascertain the facts— get at the truth of the situ- ation, and then take the people who earnestly want to meet that situation, and let them sit down together and put their best heads together, with a view to finding some remedy. I have not come here on behalf, Mr. Chairman, of my people with any readv made panacea ; I am ready to listen to any suggestion that should be made, and I shall offer some on our behalf. All I plead for is that we handle this conference as men ; handle it with reason, not with emotion ; with a realization of the great consequences that may come out of this. I have told your counsel, Mr. London, in private conference, that I am confident if we approach the conference with the proper spirit, we can adjust the difficulties involved in this strike, but I am not satisfied with that personally. We have gone into this conference, gentle- men, not merely for the purpose of adjusting these grievances, but for the purpose of finding out some way by which this awful waste in the settling of difficulties may be avoided in the future. With all of the respect that you want us to have for your rights, and with all of the respect that you want — that we want you to have for ours, there still remains the problem of how cati we work together, and it is my hope and my prayer, personally, that out of this conference, approached in a sincere and genuine spirit, we shall find that we shall agree upon something, and having agreed upon those things, you, out of the abundance of your experience, and we, out of the abundance of ours, will try to find some working basis for avoiding future difficulties of this sort ; and that is the spirit in which we approach this conference. It is not a time for any hatchets or any pistols or any knives ; ours are on the table; we hope yours are, too. Now, we shall proceed in an orderly fashion. So far as my people are concerned, I have ararnged that they shall only speak when I feel that it is necessary for them to speak, and they will hand me their sugges- tions in writing. We shall adjourn for conference among ourselves whenever we find it essential. We have arranged so that you may do likewise. You can have a room where you can talk out your views. We are anxious, Mr. Chairman, for a speedy termination of this conference. It is costing us a great deal of anxiety; it is costing us a great deal of personal inconvenience. If there ever was pressure upon a body to expedite its business promptly, it is here, and I must personally express my gratification that through the generosity of your side and the willing- ness of our side, we have been able to secure as the presiding officer over our delib- erations a man who enjoys the confidence of the labor men of the country, as he enjoys the confidence of the business men of the country, and with his legal train- ing, with his knowledge of what is the best and most expeditious way of disposing 25 of such matters, I am sure that Mr. Brandeis’ presence in the chair is the best assurance you can all have that this conference will proceed expeditiously, and if any further assurance on our side is necessary, Mr. London, I beg to officially assure you now, sir, that so far as I am concerned, and my people are concerned, we will do everything that in us lies to reach a determination properly and promptly. We come in a meek and humble spirit, solely because we are realizing tlie big social problem that we are facing at this table here; that it is not a mere n atter of this strike, whether you win this strike or we win this strike; that is a subordinate issue. The big question in this matter that we want to dispose of is, how can the people for whom you are speaking live just a little better than they did before, and how can we help them to do it, and how can we prevent this fearful waste in the future, and we are humble because we realize that is a big problem, and because it is going to require the best brains and the best heart we can give to it, and w'e are going to make that contribution on our side, and we are going to expect you to make yours on your side. THE CHAIRMAN ; I think, gentlemen, from what both Mr. London and Mr. Cohen have said, that we are confirmed in the belief that the conference proceeds under the best auspices. The first subject, Mr. London, which is by agreement to be considered, is the question of charging for materials and electricity, and we shall be glad to hear first from your side on that subject. I don’t know but what Mr. Lennon MR. LENNON : No, I do not believe that my acquaintance with the details warrants me in discussing those kind of matters. THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. MR. LENNON; And Mr. London can present it, and then one of the other members. MR. LONDON : Now, I will ask your permission to speak. THE CHAIRMAN : Certainly. MR. LONDON : Now, our committee asked Mr. Lennon to present each and every question as it would come up, under the impression that the Committee of Employers would do the same ; that the Chairman of the Committee of Employers would present their side of the case, but as you have decided to present your side of the case — since Mr. Cohen will speak for the Employers, I will, I think, with the consent of my committee, take the liberty to speak for the Unions. Now, there are several things in our demands that should be consented to with- out any discussion whatever. The only question will be how we can enforce it. It is a disgraceful state of affairs that our employees are made to contribute for tbe expense of electricity and are made to pay for the use of materials. I am confident that there is not a trade in the world, outside of the cloak trade, where such a thing is practiced. MR. COHEN: May I interrupt you a moment? MR. LONDON : I think the Chairman should be the only one to interrupt me. MR. COHEN : I should like to ask IMr. London if he will be so kind as to state exactly what the situation is for our information. MR. LONDON : The situation is this : In many shops the employers compel the men to make — to pay for the use of electricity. I have here one book — it is not necessary to show it — and out of the glorious and big wage of $4.60 earned by one of our prosperous employees — out of the sum of $4.60 earned during the week N ending on the 13th of June, 1910, the sum of nine cents was deducted for the use of electricity. MR. COHEN ;■ May I ask Mr. London a question ? MR. LONDON; Yes. MR. COHEN : Is that a condition that prevails throughout the industrv? 26 MR. LONDON ; It prevails — wherever it prevails it should be abolished. 1 am not charging any particular member of this Association with that practice, but I say no member of this Association should hesitate for a moment in agreeing with us that wherever such a practice exists it should be immediately done away with. MR. COHEN : I want to get light, i\Ir. London, if you will pardon me. I want to ask whether it exists in a large number of instances. MR. LONDON : In a very large number. MR. COHEN : In how many, Air. Rosenberg? AIR. ROSENBERG: Seventy-five per cent, of the trade. AIR. COHEN : And how much does it amount to ? AIR. ROSENBERG: Five per cent. ; fiv^e cents on the dollar. AIR. COHEN : How much do you think it amounts to in the total ? MR. LONDON : I haven't figured it up. That is impossible without calcu- lation. AIR. COHEN : What is' your best guess ? AIR. LONDON : It is impossible. AIR. COHEN : Does it make a large sum or a small sum ? • AIR. ROSENBERG: Sometimes a dollar a week, and more, probably. Fur- thermore — AIR. COHEN : How much does it amount to in total, approximatelv ; what the people have to give up? I want to see how serious a thing it is. AIR. ROSENBERG: It is not a question of the seriousness, but if a man earns $4.00 a week, and has deducted ten or fifteen cents for electricity, and in a good many cases operators have to furnish their own machines — in a good many cases in the City of New York a manufacturer hires a loft, and that is all he does. The operators bring in the machinery — machines of their own. The moment he comes to the shop, if the garment is not satisfactory, he has to remove his machine somewhere else, and he pays 50 cents for removing the machine, and only earns 35 cents for the garment. THE CHAIRAIAN : In this particular instance the charge for electricity appears to be about two per cent, of the earnings; is that a fair average? AIR. ROSENBERG : About three and one-half per cent. AIR. COHEN : In what percentage would you say that existed in the industry? Seventy-five per cent. ? AIR. ROSENBERG: Seventy-five per cent, of the shops. THE CHAIRAIAN : That is of the number of shops ? AIR. ROSENBERG : Yes. THE CHAIRAIAN : And is it a fact that that is more largelv in the small shops ? AIR. ROSENBERG: No; even in very large shops — shops where there are a hundred machines running. AIR. SCHLESSINGER : In many small shops they have foot power onlv. AIR. MEYER: Some large shops have only foot power, too. MR. COHEN : Seventy-five per cent, of the shops, and about three and one- half per cent, of the earnings? THE CHAIRAIAN : I suppose it would average from three to three and one- half. AIR. COHEN ; Let us take that figure — three and one-half. That would give us a percentage of about how much? Three and one-half per cent, of 75 per cent, is about 2.62, say, in the rough ; about three per cent, of the earnings. THE CHAIRAIAN : No, I do not understand that. Air. Rosenberg said that about 75 per cent, of the men — of the employees, but it related to the shops and not to the employees. 27 MR. ROSENBERG: Seventy-five per cent, of the shops, yes. MR. COHEN : Does that mean 75 per cent, of the emplo}^ees ? MR. ROSENBERG: No. MR. COHEN : What percentage of the employees would you say? MR. ROSENBERG: About 50 per cent. MR. COHEN : Do you gentlemen agree as to that? MR. SCEILESSINGER: It is an average guess. MR. COHEN : Fifty per cent, of the employees, and about three and one-half per cent, of the earnings; that would make it — 150 and 25 would be 175 — that would be somewhere between one and two per cent, of the total earnings; and what do you think the total earnings of your industry are, Mr. Rosenberg? MR. ROSENBERG: I have never taken the time to consider that. MR. COHEN : Twenty-five per cent, of $250,000,000? MR. ROSENBERG: About that. MR. COHEN : Twenty-five per cent, of $250,000,000 would be about sixty- two and a half million dollars, and say one per cent, would make $62,000 — between $62,000 and $100,000 would be involved in that event. MR. DYCHE: There are probably 10,000 employees, operators, who pay this l)ig amount, whether it amounts to five million or five thousand. THE CHAIRMAN : Your estimate, Mr. Dyche, would be that about 10,000 employees only were affected by this? MR. DYCHE : Yes ; about 10,000 employees have to pay for power, an average of about three and one-half per cent, of their earnings — for electricity. We are not statisticians. MR. COHEN : I am not asking for statistics. I am trying to ascertain for my own information how serious a matter this is, and not at the present time to con- sider the justice of it; that we will consider later. I wanted to know whether it was a large or a small matter. MR. SCHLESSINGER : I would suggest that. you figure up how many manu- facturers you have in New York, and how much it would amount to each and every one of them. If you are interested to know the exact percentage of employees that have to pay for electricity — if you are interested in the gross earnings of all these people, you should also take the number of employers you have in this cit\% to know how much it will mean to every one of them. I should think there are about 30 per cent, of the trade in New YMrk. MR. COFIEN : Then you do not agree with Mr. Rosenberg about 50 per cent. ? May I ask this question? Your proposed agreement, which I only refer to for the purpose of simply just what you have in mind, says that the firm is to furnish to all employees, free of charge, sewing machines driven by electric power, which are to be in charge of competent machinists, and all requisites for work, ft it your understanding, Mr. London, that all work done in the factories can be done by- electric power? MR. LONDON : I say all work that can be done by electric power should be done by electric power. A VOICE: All the operating work. MR. LONDON : All the operating work, and as to the provision about ma- chinists, we have found that in a good many shops tailors were compelled to at- tend to the machines ; of course, with dire results. THE CHAIRMAN : That is, Mr. London, ymu are proposing that it should be clone by electric power, in order to avoid any mechanical assistance from the em- ployees in operating the machines? MR. LONDON : No. Wherever they introduce electricity, that the machines .should be in charge of a competent machinist, and that the tailor should not be asked to take charge of the machines. 28 THE CHAIRMAN : Now, to what extent are the machines operated by steam power, as distinguished from electricity ? MR. LONDON : That would be the same thing. THE CHAIRMAN : You did not mean to confine it to electricity? MR. LONDON : Power other than foot power or human power. MR. COHEN : That is one of the things I am trying to get at. I understand there are some very high-class shops operated by foot power ; isn’t that a fact, Mr. London ? MR. LONDON : That is true. MR. COHEN : You would require them to change their power to electricity? MR. LONDON : I would require them in the course of time ; not to-day or to-morrow; not to break up their business to-day, but I would require them in the course of time to introduce electric power. MR. COHEN : How would you expect our association to work toward that end ? MR. LONDON : Well, if you think it is a reasonable demand and that it should be complied with, and if you will adopt that as your code of conduct, why, you will MR. COHEN : A code is a definite thing. Your suggestion is that it is some- thing we should strive for in the industry? MR. LONDON : Yes. MR. COHEN : Well, what would you ask us to obligate ourselves to do in that respect? MR. LONDON : I would ask your members to obligate themselves to install electrically driven machines in a reasonable time in their factories. MR. COHEN ; Then you leave the question open as to what is a reason- able time? MR.LONDON : Of course. MR. COHEN : I rvant to avoid indefiniteness. MR. LONDON : Now, then, you can come to an understanding as to what a reasonable time means. MR. COHEN: You think we can? MR. LONDON : Oh, yes, I think we can. MR. COHEN : Then, as I understand it, that problem is one that embraces two propositions. First, the introduction of electricity where electricity does not exist, and secondly, the elimination of the charges for electricity. THE CHAIRMAN : I should put it the other way. There is one thing that can be put into operation at once, if it is the agreement of the conference ; that is, that where charges are now made they shall be discontinued; and secondly, where foot power is now used, steps shall be taken to substitute electricity or steam power within what may prove to be a reasonable time, and I suppose that what is a reasonable time might conceivably differ with different estimates; that is, that when we come to the question of remedies, we should have to provide some method of determining what is a reasonable time with reference to particular items. MR. COHEN ; I would be obliged to say now, Mr. Chairman, that the conditions of the industry are such that in the higher class of trade where the work is done with more skill, with more design, the installation of elec- trical machinery is impracticable, and I doubt very much whether we can make a general rule for the entire industry. THE CHAIRMAN : Well, let us consider MR. SCHLESSINGER : Outside of the City of New York, where electric power is used, it is not charged for. 29 MR. COHEN : Well, that is a small proportion of the industry. The important portion is in New York. MR. LENNON: The details of this I am not familiar with. I am in the trade union movement because I am a humanitarian ; that is al the bottom of it; that is at the center of it, and at the top also. With the strenuosity of modern industry, can any man defend the application of human power where motive power of some character can be used? MR. COHEN : We do not discuss that question. We are agreed as to that. MR. LENNON: You agree as to that? MR. COHEN : Yes. I do not dispute that, but what I am trying to find out how we can apply that principle to this particular industry. MR. LENNON : If we qre agreed as to that, then MR. COHEN: Certainly. THE CHAIRMAN : Let me come back, with your permission, to the first question, as to whether or not the charge for electricity, where it is made, should be abolished. There we eliminate all questions as to what is possible and what is not. You are coming down here to a perfectly defiirite financial question. Now, are you all of you agreed that the charge for electricity is one that ought to be abolished? MR. COHEN : Noav, Mr. Chairman, I understand there are two sides to that question. I have not made a complete investigation of my industry, so I cannot speak with authority, but I know that in some of- the shops the em- ployees have voluntarily agreed to pay for the electricity ; in sofne shops they asked for the substitution of special machines that could be applied to their machines, and agreed to take care of it. Obviously there is some advantage in making your employees responsible for the handling of the machines, be- cause then he will not use too much power; but whether or not it is a fah thingl to do, it seems to me comes largely imder the head of compensation, because it is like, Mr. Chairman, our usual charge against a client for stenography and typewriting. Some clients think it is an outrag^ to pay your fee and also j)ay for stenography and typewriting, but as you know in a large number of large law offices, a charge is made for typewriting and also for telephones, and the fundamental question is, does the fee include the charge or should it be added? We think that question can be taken up with the question of vvag'es, because it involves a tremendous sum ’of money to us; and it may that when we come to adjust the question of wages, we may be able to adjust it along with that question. THE CHAIRMAN : I think there is a different point of view which has been urged, and tbe specific thing! has not yet been mentioned here. I understand that these charges for electricity are not charges which certainly in many shops represent the cost of the electricity : they represent a very considerable profit on the cost to the manufacturer of the electricity, and they therefore present an opportunity of abuse. I have heard of the same thing being true — of course, I am not familiar with the facts, but F merely wanted to call attention to them so that they might be discussed, because they are important — I have heard the same thing in regard to the charge for material, that they are made the occasion of really — of changing what ap- pears to be the rate of compensation, by charging prices that vary in dif- ferent shops, and which involve a very material profit in some shops over the cost of the electricity to the manufacturer. Is that so, IMr. London? MR. LONDON: Yes. 30 MR. COHEN : I am ready to concede that the system opens the dcor to a good deal of abuse. I am' not ready to admit in our behalf that there is such a charge or profit. I knojw of no instance where it is correct. If the instance can be pointed out, of course it ought to be rectified. I) sub- scribe immediately to the proposition that it should not be made the basis of a profit, even if the charge is made. The question of a charge for material has not yet been defined. Let us confine ourselves for the moment to the elec- tricity. I am ready to agree with Mr. Lennon that wherever it is prac- ticable in the industry, machine power should be used in place of foot power. I am ready to go so far as to say this, that the extent of charges for electricity should be, if at all, at cost, without any profit. The question of whether or not there should be — what I said was this — Mr. Bloch — I said that I agreed with Mr. Lennon on the general proposition that where electricity could take the place of foot power, without injury to the industry, that that should be done. I also agreed with him that the charge for electricity, if it was to be made at all, should not be made at a profit. That is, there should be l othing added to its actual cost. Then I was about to say that the question of whether or not there should be any charge for electricity w'ould depend upon a number of other circumstances — the question of whether the worker was getting sufficient pay to make up — by reason of the fact that he had elec- tricity — in other w'ords, Mr. Chairman, the introduction of electricity where piece W'ork is done is to the distinct advantage of the piece worker, because it enables him to earn so much more, and he may very well be willing, for the sake of doing more w'ork, to pay for the electric power. It is not only a humane question, but an economic question. Some employees have gone to the employers and asked for electricity, and have been willing to pay for it, because under the piece Avork system they could take so maii)^ more gar- ments, and thus make more money. If they are to get more for piece work garments, and also take away the deductisoji for electricity, they ate, in effect, getting double as much, so it seems to me that the question of Avhether or not there should be a charge for the electricity depends A'er\- largely on the other question of whether or not the w^orker is so doubling up his earn- /ings or Avhether or not he is getting sufficient pay for it, and therefore I think the question is linked up Avith the question of wages. That is •i.y only point at the present. MR. LENNON : It seems to me, gentlemen, that — I say this to start Avifh — that I would not have had the slightest conception that any body of men in the world would have a difference on this whole proposition, that there would be a slight question. I belie\"ed that when we approached this ques- tion, that Ave w'ouid agree before we Avould turn around almost. MR. COHEN : I haA-e not said that Ave Aviil not agree. MR. LENNON : I knoAv. M!R. COHEN : Do not misunderstand me. MR. LENNON : I am not going to. MR. COHEN : I want to listen to what you have to say, and listen atten- tively, and understand it. ■MR. LENNON : No, I was going to say that as an old tailor, I have had some experience, not Avith the question of electricity, but Avith something else Avhich has a bearing on the matter. I have worked at my trade Ifrom the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, and occasionally I had to take a job wdiere I could get it, if I was broke or something, on the road, and I would find an employer that made me furnish the basting cotton to baste up, mv coat, and occasionally I found one that made me furnish the basting cotton and 31 silk as well, to do the sewing with. Well, that never appealed to me, and II would only do one job for him, enough to get money to get to the next town. It has long since been abolished from anything like first-class custom tailoring trade. MR. COHEN ; It has been the custom, I know, of the old-fashioned law offices in New York to add to the bill for professional services a bill for stenographic work and typewriting. MR. LENNON: Yes^ MR. COHPIN : And the clients — modern business clients, have re(|uested that that be discontinued. MR. LENNON: They should. MR. COHhlN : I think they should myself. The result has been that these old-fashioned offices that are becoming modern add to the charge for legal services, and eliminate the charge for stenographic and typewriting services. We may find the same way of remedying this condition. You rvould not object, I am sure. Yon said the percentage was something like 3/^2 per cent. If 3"Ou could get an increase of wages for these operators of lo per cent., you would not object to the payment of per cent. AIR. LENNON : I would object. MR. ROSENBERG: We would object, as a matter of principle. MR. COHEN: Wh\r is it a matter of principle? MR. ROSENBERG: We are not business men. We do not care anything about your end of it. MR. COHEN: I want to find out, Mr. Rosenberg — you say that even if the wages were increased lo per cent. MR. ROSENBERG: Even 50 per cent. MR. COHEN: Or 50 per cent.; you would still object to that? MR. ROSENBERG: Yes, to any charge for electricity or machinery. MR. COHJEN : As a matter of principle? MR. ROSENBERG : Yes. MR. COHEN: Why, as a matter of principle? MR. ROSENBERG: Because we believe if a manufacturer w'ants to go into business he should fix up his own machinery, absolutely. There are men who have onl^^ $200 and start in business, and hire a loft, and hang up a sign, and then they go out on the street and get men, who can bring in their own machines, their own shuttle, and their own needles, and their own cotton and silk, and also deposit some security, and out of the security they go to wmrk and buy ^^oods and start manufacturing. AIR. COHEN : I am sure our clients will be in sympath}^ with putting that down. MR. LENNON : I want to give another reason that I believe is funda- mental. That opens the road to any amount of imposition that the manu- facturer is enabled to put upon a class of people who have recently come from the despotism of Russia and other countries, that is intolerable here. If they (can doi it for power, the)^ can do it for many other things, and it opens the road — the door. AIR. COHEN : lhat appeals to me very strongly. Are we dealing now with a situation, Mr. Dyche, that exists — the situation that Air. Rosenberg discloses — I do not want to mention any names. Does that exist among members of our association too? AIR. DA'CHE- T know it exists in what we call legitimate houses too. AIR. COHEN : We may be able, as a result of our conference here, to make standards, but we can only enforce them among the members of our organization, and while we agree with Air. Rosenberg that we want to elim- 32 inate the man who starts Avith $200, and has his capital from his working men, nevertheless we have no way of making that effective, except in our association. Do you know their names? A VOICE: No. MiR. COHEN- Mr. Lennon, will you do this for me? Will you let your people, during recess, hand you, not fixing responsibility on the part pf anybody, a list of names whom they believe to be members of our association who — it will come to you privately — avIio are doing that, and I will take that matter up with my people, beca'use there may be special circumstances, and 1 want to find out what they are. THE CHAIRMAN : Would it not be undesirable to deal Avith the ques- tion as a question of a specific shop? If this is a bad principle of business, then is it not important that in any arrangement that you reach Avith the union, you declare that to be a principle to be abolished, and make it entirely immaterial whether members of your association are in it or not, beccuse, undoubtedly, as you stated a moment ago, the standard Avhich Avill be created, is one that the union can insist upon applying generally, and it seems to me it.Avould be advisable not to make it invidious by pointing out MR. COHEN: I think possibly — I have tAVO AA^ays of finding it out, of course. I can find it out by asking my OAvn people Avhether they do it or not. MR CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR COHEN : And the other way is to find it out from you. THE CHAIRMAN; Yes. MR. COHEN : There may be people in our Association at present Avhom our Executive Committee do not knoAV, and I want to do this, hir. Chairman. I have pledged you that I am going to try to work out a solution of this thing, and Avhat I Avant to avoid — Mr. Dyche, I Avant you to hear me, because I Avant you to knoAV th-s; I do not want to put doAvn on paper a hope or ex- pectation. I Avant to put down something that can be Avorked out, and Avhen Ave pledge ourselves, I Avant to knoAV that Ave can work it out Avith our Asso- ciation, and I do not Avant you gentlemen to go aAvay Avith any impression that Ave can alone change these conditions you speak about. MR LENNON; We are going to help you. MR. SCHLESSINGER: I see some arguments advanced Avhich very much appeal to me. For instance, taking the question of electricity, I Avant, if I make an agreement, and I charge a dollar for my Avork, to knoAv that I Avil! have a dollar for it, but if at the end of the Aveek a portion of that is to be deducted, I do not knoAV AV'hat I am going to get. We AA^ant to have no charges for electricity, or anything else, so that the prices aauU be net. If I earn $20, I Avant to xnoAV Avhat I get at the end of the Aveek. IMR. LONDON : I desire to add, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, that, on behalf of the union men, I Avish to say that Ave Avould consent to pay for the use of electricity, provided that a proper system for the division of profits Avere introduced in the trade. MR. COHEN ; That is a very kind suggestion. We Avill take it under advisement. (Laughter) MR. LEFCOURT: If it is not asking too much, I should like to inquire Avhether any of the gentlemen representing the employees are at present employed by the trade, or are they MR. LONDON: They are engaged in a conference Avith the employers ^!R. LEFCOURT: That ansAvers me technically, but not directly. MiR. LONDON; Some have come back to work. 33 MR. COHEN : I vlo not understand the point of your question, Mr. Lefcourt. What is it you want to find out: whether these people have tech- nical knowledge of the things they are speaking of? MR. LEFCOURT: No. I tried to find out whether any gentleman on the Committee has been employed in the trade practically up to the time the strike was called, as tailors or operators. MR. COHEN : All of them except Mr. Lennon. MR. LONDON : All of them except Mr. Lennon. MR. COHEN : I do not think we had better press that. MR. SCHLESSINGER: I just want to answer Mr. Lefcourt. He asked whether all of the people here have been employed in the trade at the time the strike was called. THE CHAIRMAN: That question has been ruled out; withdrawn. MR. SCHLESSINGER: I want to say in reference to the charge for electricity, the question is not how many manufacturers of the Association have installed electricity in their shops and how many are charging for it, but to say that all of those who have electricity in or who may install it shall not charge anythmg for it. MR. COHEN: What kind of work do you do? MR. SCHLESSINGER: I am a cloak maker. I was an operator for thirteen years. I started to work at the trade when I was thirteen years old. MR. COHEN: How long is it since you worked at the trade? MR. SCHLESSINGER: Three years ago. MR. COHEN : There has been a big change in the industry in three years. MR. SCHLESSINGER: Yes, in living expenses. Living expenses are higher now than they were then. In the building trades there are hod car- riers. In a two story building the hod is being carried up by a hod carrier; in the sky scrapers, of course, a man cannot carry up the hod, and a ma- chine is carrying lhe hod up. Now, whether it is a machine, or whether it is a man, the hod carrier, his hod is being carried up by a machine and he is not being charged for the electric power. MR. COHEN: Would you insist that even in a two story building the hod carrying should be done by electricity? MR. SCHLESSINGER: Just one second. MR. COHEN: Answer that. MR. SCHLESSINGER: The question here is not whether I would like to see an electric machine carrying up hod in a two story building, but I am simply telling you that the men should not be called upon to pav for the power. MR. COHEN : My point of view is this, ]\Ir. Chairman, that, assuming that the gentlemen are right in their statement that this thing is injurious to the worker, because, as Mr. Lennon and Mr. Rosenberg and Dyche have put it, it oflers opportunity for an unscrupulous manufacturer to make un- reasonable and unjust exactions from the worker, there still remains the general question whether or not electricity should be applied throughout the industry, and whether we can enforce the small manufacturer to do it. THE CHAIRMAN: Before taking up the question whether you should apply electricity where it is not already applied, would it not be well to dis- pose of the question of charging for the material? MR. COHEN: What are the facts in regard to that ? THE CHAIRMAN: Charging for materials, Mr. Schlessinger. What is being done in the way of charging for materials? 34 ]\IR. POLAKOFF: I want to make a statement here that one of your members are charging our tailors six cents for small spools of silk that cost them four cents, and do you want to know the name? THE CHAIRMAN: No, do not let us have any names. MR. COHEN ; Mr. Polakoff thinks that he knows of at least one member MR. POLAKOFF: And more. MR. COHEN: How many more? MR. POLAKOFF : Well, about two dozen. MR. COHEN: About two dozen? MR. POLAKOFF: Yes, who are charging for silk, cotton, and so forth MR. LONDON: Two dozen supposed members of the Association? MR. POLAKOFF: Yes. MR. COHEN : I do not suppose those are people who are very generous in their pay to their employees? MR. POLAKOEF: Yes. MR. COHEN : Do you gentlemen feel that that is a matter of principle, like the electricity? A VOICE: We do. MR. CQHEN: You think that could not be adjusted in the wages? MR. POLAKOFF: No. MR. MEYER: I should like to ask if that constitutes, under the heading of charge for material, everything which has been mentioned so far, because some of us are not familiar with the conditions in all the shops? This spool silk proposition is one. Are there any others? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Polakoff, is there anything else? There have been mentioned charges for silk and cotton. Are there any other charges of that nature? MR. POLAKOFE: Charging for needles. MR. COHEN: Are there the same number that charge for needles? MR. POLAKOFF: Well, I could not say. MR. COHEN: About the same number? MR. POLAKOFE : There are a good many. MR. COHEN: Is that the practice of the larger manufacturers, or only the smaller ones? MR. POLAKOFF: The larger ones. MR. COHEN: There are some of the larger ones? MR. POLAKOEF: AYs. MR. COHEN: That is done by some of the larger ones? MR. POLAKOFF: Yes. I paid $2.50 to one of the largest firms fn the City of New York, and I carry with me now a shuttle and bobbin for which they charged me $2.50. I have it now. I went into a shop to work, and I asked the girl for a shuttle, and she said, “If you want a shuttle and bobbin, give me $2.50.” Of course I did. I was compelled to. When I quit, I came to the girl, and I asked for the $2.50. She said, “Come around next week.” I came around then, and she told me the superintendent was not in the shop. I went until I got sick and tired. MR. MEYER : May I ask the speaker if he received a receipt for his deposit ? MR. POLAKOFF: They do not give any receipts there. MR. COHEN : Gentlemen, I assume, of course, that you do not include in this charge for materials, in those cases where machinery is injured by any of your employees, or parts are destroyed or stolen — that, of course, you do not mean to include in this point? 35 MR. LONDON: I must ask that the reference to stealing be stricken out. We do not warn to speak of stealing by the employees, or the bank- ruptcy by the manufacturers. MR. COHEN : We do not assume that every one of our members are beyond question, and you are not going to claim that every one of your members is. I do want to know what protection we have against theft. MR. LONDON: You have a penal Code and a Bankruptcy Act to provide against various crimes. THE CHAIRMAN: And you have the right to discharge. MR. LONDON; Yes, you have the right to discharge them. THE CHAIRMAN : I do think that the other points that Mr. Cohen has made are proper subjects of discussion, whether a man is to be charged for breakage in machinery. MR. LONDON: Undoubtedly; we admit that. Any breakage that is due to negligence of any of our men should be charged to them. MR. POLAKOFF ; Provided there be a machinist in the factory. MR. LONDON: Of course. MR. MEYER: There is sometimes negligence in the garment proper; that is the thing we are speaking of now. Sometimes parts of the garment are damaged through neglicence or carelessness of the employee. What I would like to know, is to have everything that comes under the head of charges for material defined, so that we will know exactly where we stand. It is not a question of standing on technicalities. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you prepared to make a statement on that subject? Mr. Meyer has raised the question of charges for damaged work. MR. LONDON : I am prepared to make a statement that we do expect our employees to do work correctly, and every man in the trade expects to pay for damage that is the result of his negligence. MR. COHEN: That is a very fair statement. MR. MEYER: That is very satisfatcory. TFIE CHAIRMAN : Now, gentlemen, have we said all that can be said on the subject of charges — I mean all the points that can be raised on the subject of electricity and materials? MR. LONDON : With the consent of my Committee, I would like to sav that we have not come prepared with affidavits to show the abuses in effect, but to state a general condition, and we take it for granted that many members of the Association know of these conditions of their personal knowledge, and we ask that this evil be done away with. MR. COHEN : I will say, Mr. Chairman, that I will take this matter with my delegates in caucus, and will come back with a definite answer to the con- ference. THE CHAIRMAN : And will you also take up with your delegates, Mr. Cohen, the question of the extent to which it will be possible to substitute motor for hand power or foot power? MR. COFIEN : Yes. MR. LONDON : And on the question of what a reasonable time would mean, if such a thing be possible? MR. COHEN; Yes. MR. GREENBERGER : There is another charge that comes up ; that is in regard to employees having to pay for parts that are sometimes left out of the garment. The cutter cuts the garment according to directions, and the assorter assorts the garment, and the garment is then turned over to the operator. At times it arises that parts have been missing, and the operators have been charged for these parts. 36 THE CHAIRMAN : Although they are not responsible for them? MR. GREENBERGER; Yes. ’ , THE CHAIRMAN: I suppose every one vrould agree that that is unjust? MR. COHEN: Oh, yes. MR. SILVERMAN : Regarding the shuttles and other things, the custom has been at all times to receive a deposit for the shuttles, bobbins, silk and cotton, and so on, but invariably that is returned to the operator when he returns the shuttle, and so forth. That thing has been put in vogue for the simple reason that when an operator would leave, he would invariably have parts of the machine with him, and this was only done for that purpose. I hardly believe there is such a thing in the manufacturing trade as to refuse a man the return of his deposit when he leaves. MR. COHEN : That would seem to indicate that if the manufacturers have found it necessary to take a deposit for those tools, that there should be devised some system of protection for the employees ; that is to say, there should be a system of receipts or vouchers, and it ought to be such a matter as that if any member of our Association — I say unhesitatingly that if we accepted a deposit for tools or materials entrusted to an employee, I may say, I think, without con- ferring with my Committee, that if we established a joint grievance committee for both sides as a result of this conference, and it were found that any members of our Association were guilty of failing to return a deposit to an employee, I should advise my Comm.ittee that that was sufificient ground for expelling him from the Association. THE CHAIRMAN : I would like to ask Mr. Silverman a question. How much is the total deposit which is customarily exacted from an individual em- ployee for bobbins, or tools? MR. SILVERMAN : In our individual shop we get one dollar. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the total of the deposit? MR. SILVERMAN : That is the total deposit. THE CHAIRMAN : No further deposit is taken? MR. SILVERMAN : No further deposit, and it is always returned at the re- turn of the tools. THE CHAIRMAN : Isn’t this a fact, that it would almost never happen that at the time a man leaves the employ there was not at least — I mean, up to the time that he leaves, that there is not at least a dollar due him, so that he could surrender his deposit and get paid at the same time — I mean, surrender his shuttle and get his pay? MR. SILVERMAN : Well, he gets his pay when he surrenders his book, but the deposit has nothing to do with his pay. We cannot hold his pay. THE CHAIRMAN : Take this case: If a man was going to leave MR. SILVERMAN : But we do not know when he leaves. THE CHAIRMAN : Suppose he wants to leave MR. COHEN : Suppose he has been paid Saturday night and makes off with the things, then you are not protected. It is very much like a deposit for a latch key or anything else. THE CHAIRMAN : It is a good thing to have a little protection against theft. MR. SILVERMAN : Yes, and we must have it. MR. LONDON : It would be extremely unfair to exact a deposit from a man who has not the amount to deposit, sO' if you have no other reason, the man who has not a dollar in his pocket should be entitled to go in and work in a factory, and he should not be met with the proposition that he could not work if he did not have the amount to deposit. 37 MR. COHEN : The answer to that is that the deposit has never been exacted, as far as we know, until the man has earned at least one week’s wages. VOICES : No, no. MR. MEYER: I think we are arguing upon a point which is a simple one, and in my own personal experience I do not remember a case of trouble. To give an illustration, I sometimes meet a man after about two years, and he will have his little yellow slip. Naturally, we can only speak about personal experience. That these abuses exist in the trade, or may exist, I am not here to deny. I can only speak of my individual case. The man who comes to work and is wichout a dollar and is not known, and will stay on his machine for the first day and get the shuttle, and his silk is entrusted to him; very often a very large spool of silk, etc., and I think it is very justified, and we have never found — I do not believe I have ever heard of the refusel of a mechanic to deposit that dollar or dollar and a half, bcause it is a system which works of its own accord. The moment he wants to leave, he says, “Here is my shuttle,” and here is your money back. MR. POLAKOFF : I wish to state that there are manufacturers in the Asso- ciation that tailors or operators cannot com.e into the factory unless they pay them five dollars. I want to state that there are some of the members of the Associa- tion that the tailors are compelled to pay a dollar a week for security. MR. COHEN : That is another topic. THE CHAIRMAN : That is another subject. MR. POLAKOFF : There are tailors who cannot get into the shop until they give them five dollars. MR. BLOCH : I want to point out a statement in regard to unscrupulous em- ployers. In many instances that have come under our attention, these tailors and operators have been compelled to give a deposit of five dollars. Where there are 20 or 30 employees in a shop, and sometimes a hundred, it amounts to quite a lot to the employer, and he is running his business on a shoe string, so to speak. We find it is just as possible to ask some of the cutters that handle silk, and in some instances silk has been taken unbeknown to some of the people, and the union, at all times, has never stood by a man who has been caught getting away wdth any of that silk; they have always punished them for that. MR. COHEN : Would you be willing to stand for a pledge in an agreement which should be drawn to that effect, that if we presented charges to you, wdth evidence sustaining it, that you would expell from the union any man caught doing that? MR. BLOCH : Of course we would. VOICES : Yes. MR. COHEN : You gentlemen feel that there is certain unfair competition existing among the manufacturers. We feel that there is certain unfair compe- tition existing among the emplo3rees. Now, w'e have got to protect one another. MR. BLOCH : We are in a position to do as a union a great deal to protect the manufacturers against unfair competition ; possibly more so than the manu- facturers are to protect the employees, because of the mere fact that some of the employers may be of this unscrupulous nature, and w^e could possibly curtail the output of his work unless he came up to the mark of you gentlemen here. MR. COHEN : I do not think we could do that legally. MR. BLOCH : I only want to show the feasibilit}.- of abolishing this system of deposits; that it might just as well apply to anyone else as the operator that handles the shuttle. THE CHAIRMAN : Am I right in understanding that the union representa- tives are unanimous in saying that if this system of deposit should be abolished the union will take upon itself the necessary disciplining 38 MR. COHEN : Mr. Chairman, I did not understand that my question, which I asked Mr. Bloch, w'as qualified in quite the way in which you put it. What I meant to say was, that if we could find a system that would make the deposit less onerous, might we take up the matter of getting redress through the union against unscrupulous employees ? We know that such people exist. I am not at all ready to surrender the system of deposits at this time. I am ready to take it under ad- visement, but I want to discuss it in caucus, the feasibility of working out some solution through the joint co-operation of the Association and the Unions. MR. LENNON : Let me state it this way, that in such cases as those above referred to, that the union will by expulsion or other discipline, take such action against members who violate this principle of right as will properly protect the interests of employers against whom this act has been perpetrated. THE CHAIRMAN ; Do you mean by that, Mr. Lennon, to go so far as to say that the union would undertake to guarantee the members in this respect? MR. LENNON : No. It only goes to the extent, that, for instance, a man steals a bobbin out of the shop. The union will, when charges are filed and proof presented, investigate the case perhaps a little further, but if the evidence shows that the man has taken the bobbin, the union will make that man make good to the employer from whom it was taken, the amount that is due to him, or if he does not make good, expell him from the organization. MR. COHEN : That is not sufficient discipline to stop it. That merely means that if a man is caught stealing a watch, you wike make him give up the watch. I do not think, Mr. Lennon, that that quite meets the situation, as it appears to me. We have a situation where apparently a man can go off at the end of the "week without notifying his employer that he is going to leave, with his wages in his pocket, and retain material that belongs to his employer, because of the curious nature of this business, that you can take things in your pocket and take them away. Now, it is not an adequte remedy to stop this evil for the union to agree that if it finds a man has actually stolen a shuttle, it will require him to pay the price of it. In addition, let me make this point, that we have to deal not only with the union men, but non-union men in our shops. How are we to protect our- selves, to protect ourselves against him, except by the system of deposit? I do not think we shall be able to do away with the system of deposit for the shuttle and the silk. I think we will have to devise a system of deposit which will be fair to the employee. I think if there are cases where an employee cannot get work except by making a deposit, some system should be devised for meeting that situation, if he is a worthy employee, but I do not think we will be able to do away completely with the system of deposit. MR. LENNON : Oh, but we can do away with its abuse. MR. COHEN : Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : It seems to me the time has about come for our noon adjournment, and that it would be well if during the adjournment the represen- tatives of the union could confer together and see whether they have any definite recommendations or suggestions that they could make to you, that you can take under consideration, for your protection. MR. COHEN : We would like to have a definite suggestion in the line of this discussion, but is it fair to these gentlemen to use up their lunch hour? MR. LONDON : That is all right ; we are agreed upon it. Recess taken until 2 :oo P. M. 39 AFTERNOON SESSION. MR. COHEN : Mr. London, have you formulated your suggestion ? MR. LONDON ; I understand that Mr. Lennon is formulating one. MR. LENNON : Well, we will have to have a consultation before we can do that. THE CHAIRMAN : That is, you want to confer about it? Then we will pass to the next subject, if it is agreeable. MR. ROSENBERG; The only thing I would like to say in connection with this last subject is this, that Mr. Cohen in his remarks about the giving of security from men, among other things, said that the problem of non-union men was likely to arise. Now, we, in this conference, understand that the question of non-union men cannot be brought up, because it is our understanding of this conference that all our men are to be union men, and that the employers are to employ union men as long as we can supply them with union men; that is our understanding. If we cannot supply them with union men, why they are at liberty to employ non- union men. THE CHAIRMAN : If you will allow me to state, Mr. London, I do not think that that subject can be a subject for discussion here. I suppose it is well recognized that the union will endeavor to extend their unionship as far as they can ; that, of course, goes without saying, but I do not understand that there is any obligation assumed on that subject, and that we ought not to proceed upon any theory of that obligation. That remark of Mr. Cohen’s is simply one of the rea- sons and one of the difficulties which he said he had to call to the attention of the Committee. MR. COHEN : Exactly. THE CHAIRMAN : It seems to me that is all we have had and I think we had better pass that subject at the present, and proceed to the second, the work in tenement houses. MR. COHEN ; I am ready, sir. MR. LONDON : I was going to say that the question, once brought up, should be dealt with in the proper spirit now. We may strike up against that question at another point. THE CHAIRMAN : It seems to me, Mr. London, that that question is more appropriately discussed in the clause which we entitle the general methods of en- forcing agreements between the Association and the Union, and that it is not prop- erly discussed under the head of the supply of electricity and materials. MR. LONDON : — That is very satisfactor}^ to me. The discussion is post- poned. THE CHAIRMAN : We have now then, as the second subject of discussion, the alleged grievance in relation to the work in tenement houses. Mr. Lehnon, will you or Mr. London undertake to discuss that? MR. LENNON : I do not want to take much time. We discussed practically this morning three phases of a certain question. One was as to the matter of installing' power ; another one was as to the charges to employees for power, and the other was as to charges for materials, such as needles, silk, cotton, and so forth. Now, I expressed m3^self — I do not like to take much time — I expressed myself just about as strongly as I felt I ought to this morning on the necessity of getting through with this conference as soon as it is possible to be done. M'e would like to get through with it within 48 hours from the time it starts, and if we drop this question now and take up the next one, what is the Chairman’s idea of how we are going to reach a solution ? How are we going to know THE CHAIRMAN ; I understood, Mr. Lennon — I made the suggestion of dropping question one and passing to question 2, only because you were not ready to report the suggestions of yours and your associates as to what remedy ought to be proposed and what specific thing done, especially on the subject of deposits. MR. LENNON: Well, now about the other question that they were to fur- nish ; are they prepared to THE CHAIRMAN : I understood that you would submit them a proposition on the subject of deposits, and that with that before them, they would discuss the whole question among themselves, and then present their views. AIR. LENNON : Yes; all right. I'HE CHAIRMAN : And I think we will make the most speed if we allow that to be done. MR. LENNON : All right. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, if we will pass to the subject of work in tenemient houses — will you speak of that, Mr. London ? AIR. LONDON ; With regard to work in tenement houses, I have, during the last ten or twelve years, had occasion to sign agreements of the kind proposed by the trade this year, with almost 75 per cent, of the trade, having signed agreements with quite a few of the gentlemen who are here — I mean on the other side of the table. Now, the subject of home — of work in the tenement houses — is a very im- portant one. Work is being sent to the tenement homes, to the people, and it should not be done. That is all there is to it. It is a violation of the law in most cases. We are prepared in this instance with some affidavits showing violations of the law. We have records of violations of tlie law on the part of the manufac- turers. Work should not be sent to the tenement houses, and to the homes of the THE CHAIRAIAN : Now, assuming that instances do exist where work is sent, is there any controversy on the question as to whether work should go to the tenement houses. Air. Cohen? AIR. COHEN : I do not think there will be any likelihood of any disagree- ment on our part as to that. The only question I want to ask Air. London is this; of course, it is like the bribe taker and the bribe giver. We must prevent our people from giving the work. How do you propose to prevent your people from doing the work? MR. LONDON: Shall I answer? AIR. COHEN : Is that a relevant question ? TLIE CHAIRAIAN : I wondered whether the question really was relevant at this time. It strikes me as if we would probably make the greatest progress if we agreed upon the things that should or should not be done, and then take up, in connection with the broad question of the machinery of the unions and the com- mittees, the question as to how it should be accomplished. Now, if you agree — if both sides agree upon this question that work ought not to be done in the tene- ments, and you address your particidar question to them, how is the union going to aid in accomplishing it, it seems to me that is a question which necessarily will involve the machinery which' we will create to put in motion for the regulation of these things. MR. CO LIEN : I do not ask for the machinery at this time ; simply for an ex- pression of the attitude of the union on that. AIR. LONDON : It has been the attitude of the union to educate against it, and to educate our people, and I am quite certain that all legislation on the subject is due to the efforts of the union and largely to the efforts of organized labor. THE CHAIRAIAN : I suppose you can also give assurances to Air. Cohen that the union will do all in its power to prevent it? AIR. LONDON : To constitute itself the enforcer of the law, as far as it can. 41 MR. COHEN : If we went so far, Mr. London, as to agree on our part to ex- people, both for the sake of the men and for the sake of the public, pell any member of our Association who violated this, are you prepared to say that doing all in your power would go so far as to discipline members of your union who would violate this? MR. LONDON : Undoubtedly. MR. ROSENBERG: But on one condition; if the manufacturers would bind themselves not to employ those men who are expelled by the union, we would do so. MR. COHEN : Oh, yes ; we will agree that if you expell any members of the union for a violation of the agreement MR. ROSENBERG: You cannot find out what they are expelled for. We can only guarantee for those we do control. As you mentioned before, the manu- facturers will be employing non-union men. Can the union prevent thosQ non- union men from taking work to their houses? MR. COHEN : We must be responsible for that, and we cannot control peo- ple who are not members of our association. Upon Mr. London’s shoulders and upon mine will undoubtedly fall the burden of working out the machinery by which the things that are agreed upon will be carried into effectiveness, and from time to time I will ask questions, not intended to be impertinent, but merely to see how far we can go, to formulate a plan which I can carry out. Do not jump at the conclusion that my opinion is at variance with your own in all of these things. Now, may I in this connection, if we are to agree upon a principle that is to apply, add that we must also understand the conditions ? On our side of the fence we see this situation, that a number of the workers, not at our solicitation, but desirous of making larger returns, will take work from the shop to their homes for finishing. Now, I do not suppose we can meet that, Mr. London, in any other way than in the general way we propose to meet this problem. We can make a declaration of principles binding us that no work shall be done in tenement houses, and we can try to enforce it on the members of both our organizations. MR. LONDON : Exactly. MR. COHEN : And so far as outsiders are concerned we must rely upon the law. MR. ROSENBERG: That is no solution at all. MR. DYCITE: How can a man take work home if he has not been given the work by a firm? So the first offender is the firm. THE CHAIRMAN : I understood Mr. Cohen’s answer to that to mean simply this : So far as the members of the Association are concerned, they can bind those members, and the Association will discipline those members if they fail to keep the agreement. So far as it relates to persons outside of the Association it is a mere standard which they have created, and which they hope will be observed. M R. COHEN : I don’t know that that is quite the idea. Of course, if we are to insist upon ideal conditions among our members, we will be increasing the cost of manufacturing in our establishments, and if you insist upon ideal conditions among your people in our shops it may result in driving the workers into shops where the ideal conditions do not exist. MR. SCHLESSINGER : No, there is a remedy for it. The remedy is sug- gested by those manufacturers who have already signed the agreement with the union. THE CHAIRMAN : Just allow me — if we have reached here an agreement that each association, the manufacturers on the one hand and the unions on the other, are to make it a rule of the business which they are going to enforce to the best of their ability, that is all that can be done. Of course, the union, having a membership, presumably, that extends far beyond those who become members of 42 Ihe association, will have that obligation to every one to see, so far as they are able to enforce the law which they have made by mutual agreement with you, and you will get that protection, as far as they are able to give it. I mean the protec- tion from unfair competition. MR. COHEN : I assume that when we get to the question of working out the machinery for carrying it into effect, we may be able to devise the details. THE CHAIRMAN : That may be true. MR. LONDON ; That no work shall be given by the firm to be done at the homes of the people — that is the principle. MR. BLOCH : I want to say this, that whatever agreement may be reached at this conference will naturally become the ruling factor throughout the trade, whether they are members of the organization or not, and therefore we can well afford to say that we will insist on our members not taking any of this work home. MR. COHEN : It is my hope that what we do agree upon will be the stand- ard of the industry, but in addition to a hope, 1 want something practical. MR. ROSENBERG; Yes, let us have some practical solution. THE CHAIRMAN ; It will become the law for the unions, I understand, anyhow, which they must seek to enforce to the best of their ability. Now, is there anything further to be said on this second subject of the work in tenement houses? Mr. Cohen, any one on your side? MR. SCHLESSINGER ; I want to say one word about the competition that counsel tried to bring in. The smaller men have competed against the larger members, or against the members of your association. If the members of your association will not go into this business of tenement house labor, why, it would be possible for the members of your association to compete against the smaller ones. I will tell you why. Three hundred and fifty manufacturers of the smaller ones, and a good many larger manufacturers, have signed this agreement. They agree not to give out any work in tenement houses, although tenement house labor may be cheaper for them. Three hundred and fifty or four hundred have signed it already. Now, if your organization is not signing against tenement house labor it is impossible for them to compete against the smaller manufacturer. MR. COHEN : I catch your point, Mr. Schlessinger, but the difficulty I see with it is that these three hundred and fifty manufacturers may contain in them some people that Mr. Rosenberg refers to, and you have no means of enforcing the obligations against them. MR. SCHLESSINGER; There is only one person who can enforce this tene- ment house rule, and that is the employer. If the employer will not give them the work they cannot do it. liHE CHAIRMAN ; I think that point is clearly understood now. Now, shall we go, then, to the third subject for discussion, and that is the exaction of security. Mr. London, are you going to speak? MR. LONDON ; Yes. As to the subject of security, as the poor man’s law- yer, and as I know of hundreds of cases where manufacturers have exacted secur- ity, I want to say that I know personally of hundreds of cases where security is exacted from employees. As a rule, this security, in the contracts which are drawn up between employers and the men, in very many instances, I must say, to the shame of the members of the bar — that contracts for the employment of work- ing men are dra^vn up dishonestly, so that these contracts are absolutely worthless. Security is exacted from employees, and one of the conditions of forfeiture of the security is that the men will not join the union or not go out on strike or not stop working during the time of a strike, so that this is a serious evil in the trade. Of course, among the small manufacturers, the security constitutes a considerable por- tion of the capital with which they do business. Among the larger manufacturers 43 the security is obtained from the men, or, in other words, a portion of the men’s wages is deducted every week, in order to bind the men not to belong to a union — not to join a union or not to go out on strike, and it is this thing that we would like to see done away with. MR. COHEN : I may say now, Mr. Chairman, in answer to that, that as far as our association is concerned we will agree not to put into any contract, as a con- dition of forfeiture of the security, that the men cannot join the union or cannot go out on strike. We think those things should be eliminated. MR. CHAIRMAN : That, of course, removes that particular objection. The main question, I suppose, is as to whether security shall be exacted at all. I sup- pose the other questions of exacting security for reasons of a strike or joining the union would more appropriately come under the head of discrimination, but let us take up the broad question of exacting security generally. MR. COHEN : I do not think we can make any general rule regarding that. I agree with Mr. London that it is to the shame of the bar that unscrupulous lawyers have drawn these agreements, so that they work in a great many instances to the advantage of the small manufacturer, and it is unfair to have in a contract that a man shall not join the union or go out on strike, the penalty if he does it to be the forfeiture of his security ; but you must understand, sir, that in our industry ■\'/e have a large number of very high-priced employees, with whom we make con- tracts, and we have — I happen to know that that question has come up in a good many cases, how we could be sure, if we gave them a yearly contract, for which we are responsible, of course, and they are not pecuniarily responsible — how we could be sure — you see, they are mostly judgment proof — and they have volun- teered to leave a portion of their salary as security for their continuance. Now, in those cases I think the contract should be a reasonable contract, and I think the remedy for the situation — I am talking without having reflected very carefully — I think the remedy for the situation is, if we have a grievance committee, that in case any contract is offered to any of your people that appeal to you or your coun- sel as unreasonable, that that matter be taken up with the grievance committee with a view to formulating a contract that will be reasonable. THE CHAIRMy\N : You might, I suppose, also, if you agree that there are circumstances where security should be given, to provide for a standard contract to cover the ordinary cases. MR. LONDON : I think that the only occasion when an employer is justified in exacting security from a laborer is when the work is of particular delicacy or involves extreme knowledge, or there is a possibility that the goods may be dam- aged. That is the only possible case in which an employer' may be justified in getting security. THE CHAIRMAN ; What do you say about the case put by Mr. Cohen of the time contract? MR. LONDON : Now, let me say when we have come to that, that the giving of time contracts has been one of the greatest demoralizing factors in the trade. I want to be perfectly honest with every man who is here. The giving of these contracts has been one of the methods of opposing the union, or of opposing all efforts on the part of the working people to form an organization. Two or three individuals in a factory are picked out. They are given contracts. They are pre- ferred over anybody else, and of course they deposit some security. MR. COHEN ; May I make a suggestion ? MR. LONDON: Yes. MR. COHEN : We are now proceeding upon the theory that nobody is going to destroy the union. 44 MR. LONDON : I want to say that the giving of security and the giving of these contracts is part and parcel of one evil that prevails in the trade. That is part of the system of discrimination. MR. COHEN : May I say now, Mr. Chairman, that that all becomes past history now, enlightening for the present understanding of the situation, but as- suming that it was a means, which, of course, we cannot concede that it was prac- ticed so far as our members are concerned — but even assuming that it was a means of opposition to the union — the fact that we are ready now to work in co-operation with the union, if we can do it, indicates as clearly to these gentlemen as we possibly can that there is no intention on our part to draw any contracts that have for their basis injury to the union. We do find it necessary, sir, and of course we will find it necessary with non-union men — I mean we will have to employ people that do not belong to the union — we do find it necessary to have contracts that are bound by some kind of indemnity, and we cannot make a general rule with regard to that as far as we can see at the present time, but if there are to be any provisions of the general form of contract which is in vogue, to which Mr. London has taken exception, or any member takes exception, such as those already expressed, and tliey are unjust conditions, we are ready to see to it that our members will not sign any such, contracts, or will not insist upon their employees signing such con- tracts. THE CLI AIRMAN : Let me ask this question : You gave — assigned as a rea- son — possibly as the reason for requiring security, that you needed protection in the case of time contracts — a year or a similar period. Do you — did you — mean to limit the propriety of security to those cases where a time contract is given? MR. COHEN : Well, not merely time contracts, in the sense of being long contracts, but supposing a man comes into our place who is especially a skilled worker, and we offer him a very substantial salary for the purpose of having him, there is no way of protecting ourselves against him, except by indemnity of some sort or other. THE CHAIRMAN : Well, what is the protection? I am asking for informa- tion merely, because I am not familiar with it. MR. COHEN; It must bq THE CHAIRMAN : I mean protecton against his going away — against leaving you ? MR. COHEN; Yes, that is the protection. THE CHAIRM AN ; d'hen, therefore, it would only be in the case of an agreement for a definite period of time that that would become of importance? MR. COHEN; You start up your factory at the beginning of the season. You have there a group of men who are necessary — as necessary as your capital or yo^ur machinery. Now, these men have come to you and said. “We will come and work all of this season.” Well, now, you want to be sure that your staff is going to remain. At the height of the season you cannot go out and get more men for that particular job, just as you could get more stenographers or typewriters. Therefore, our people have to be sure that the people they are taking on at the beginning of the season will stay with them. THE CHAIRMAN ; That is on the theory of a time contract? MR. COHEN ; If you call that a time contract, it is. MR. LENNON ; Mr. Chairman, I v/ould like to say a few words on this question, if I am not butting in at the wrong time. The unions, if they have any object in existence at all — if there is any reason rvhy they should exist — is toi provide for collective bargaining instead of individual bargaining — collective contracts instead of individual contracts. This is the United 45 States. Of course, I am entirely without education, and never had an oppor- tunity to go to school, but I say that an American — not where he was born, if he wants to be an American — has a right to quit his job whenever he pleases, with or without reason, at any time, and the employer has an equal right at any time to discharge an employee, with or without reason, unless rhe reason would be assigned that he was a member of some organization. That is Americanism, and that is manhood, and the idea at this time when here is the education that has gone on through the Civic Federation, through the philan- thropic people of this country who have had to do with this great industrial question, of trying to maintain the idea of individual contracts as against collective contracts by an organization. Well, gentlemen, I could not stand for it. I want to tell you perfectly frankly, I believe that the union contract is the best contract in the world, and will best protect the emplo 3 'er, and as a sample of how it will protect the employers, I am going to refer you to a case that Mr. Brandeis MR. COHEN : 1 should hate to call Mr. Lennon to order, but we have pledged ourselves to expedition. THE CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Cohen is right. MR. ROSENBERG: Mr. Cohen, whenever he has the opportunity, always tries to show what they are going to do with the non-union men, so it shows lhat it is the intention of the manufacturers to make or to — what shall I say —to induce men to be non-union men, and to give them contracts in prefer- ence to our union men. THE CHAIRMAN : I do not think that is so. MR. COHEN : I do not think that is a fair statement. MR. ROSENBERG: So far, I would not like to mention anything about union or non-union — there is no such thing as non-union men in existence at the present day, and I can assure you gentlemen right here that any man who goes back to work will be a union man, and I want to go even still further — our men will surely not work with none-union men, regardless of any contracts. We cannot be responsible for them. If they refuse to work with non-union men, it will not be our fait. M R. COHEN : Do I understand it to be the position of the delegates to this conference that if we agree upon the terms of settlement of the griev- ances, that the union men will refuse to go back and permit us to employ members — such employees who are not members of the union, as we care to? THE CHAIRMAN : I do not understand that that question or that statement of Mr. Rosenberg’s is before this conference. It is perfectly clear that it will be the effort, I suppose, of the union to see that everybody in your employ is a union man, and that is their business, to try to get as large a per- centage of all the workers, if they are not all now, as thej' say, union men, to make them so. Now, I do not understand that anything that klr. Cohen has said here assumes that his clients are going to endeavor to introduce non- union as distinguished from union men. I understand Mr. Cohen’s position to be merely one that he recognizes what has been in the past — a fact, and which may well be, and doubtless in many places will be the fact, that there are non-union men Avorking. Now, they may be working because you do not succeed in your general plan of making all men union men’, but if the}’ Avork, you have got to take care of them in some way, and I do not see that there can be any occasion to shut one’s eyes to what is the fact. If it is not a fact, then any of these difficulties relating to non-union men will not arise : if it is a fact, Ave have got to take care of them. MR. BLOCH: I want to say — brother Rosenberg expresses his opinion at this time, and hN opinion might be right, but I Avant to say this, about 46 this question of security. We, from experience, know that it has created un- fair competition among emplovees. We know that men have been engaged at certain figures less than a cc mpetent mechanic, and they have been given agreements because they work cheaper and longer hojrs under different con- ditions, and by do ng away with that system of deposit, or of holding part of his salary for forfeiture, that v;ould prevent that untair competition. We are not organized for the purpose of injuring any particular person. We are not organized for the purpose of injuring anybody — any juanufacturcr. We are merely organized for one purpose, that is, the equalization of condi- tions among the workers, the same as the manufactu^'e-s are organized to eqitulize conditions among then'iiclves. We have got to refer to that un- scrupulous employer. He has at all times taken advantage of that situation, of the deposit system, and er gaged men, so-called, u ider duress, to compel them to work for less money and loi longer hours, writ a promise of longer work, and for the fulfillment of th.at they have given them a contract. I believe that to be unfair to the nicn that we want to ace. get standard wages and standard hours, and therefore we are unalterably opposed to that deposit system. MR. DYCHE; I w^ant to point out to you that there is a law in our organ- fzation. We do not allows any of our members to give security or to make individual contracts. He cannot remain a member of our organization if he does that. And any efllort on the part of a manufacturer to induce a man to do that is in line with attempting to break up our organization. 1'hat is not allowed in our organization. MR. COHiEN : Does that express the view of the delegates on behalf of the union? MR. LENNC)N : Mr. President, I desire to say on behalf of our commit- tee, that we wall not enter upon any agreement that requires individual de- posits from the members. THE CHAIRMAN : That, I understand, is part of your constitution or by-laws ? MR. LENNON: Yes, sir. MR. COHEN : I should like to have a copy of the provision of tlie union agreement. I would like to have it spread upon the record. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rosenberg, have you that provision? If you have, read it to the stenographer. MR. COHEN : I should like to have the exact language, because I w^ant to know what conditions we have to meet. MR. LONDON : I desire to say that it is not only because the constitution ■ — the constitution requires it. If there was no constitution in existence, it is a question of principle wuth us, and it destroys the very basis of an organ- ization if w^e will permit individual members to enter into agreements which will be different from those which the union will enter into with the em- ployer. That is the sum and substance of it. It is not on account of the con- stitution, because constitutions can be amended, but it is a matter of prin- ciple with the organization. It destroys the very essence of the organization. MR. COHEN: Have 3^011 got the provision? MR. ROSENBERG: Yes. MR. COHEN: Is this it? (Reading) “Section 4, Article 15. No person working under a contract with an employer is eligible to membership in llie international or any local union or sub-local union. Any member signing and accepting such contract shall be expelled from membership in the international and its affiliated unions, or sub-local unions.” 47 Now, may I ask a pointed question, because it is an important matter, whether the gentlemen representing the unions, are agreed upon the proposi- tion that the adjustment of grievances in this conference on this topic cannot be had except upon the condition that we agree on our part that no contracts be made with individual employees, and that no security be taken from in- dividual employees? THE CHAIRMAN : I do not think, Mr. Cohen, that that question had better be pressed. It seems to me that it is not wise, as we go through the eleven S])ecific subjects of discussion, to consider whether one or the other of that eleven is an inevitable condition of conference, I think it will tend to a more successful result in our whole conference, if we agree or disagree on any one, and then when we have passed through the eleven different heads, consider what the situation is, and see whether there are insurmountable obstacles. MR. COHEN : I accept the Chairman’s judgment on that. MR. POLAKOFE: I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, why are the manu- facturers asking for agreements? When the season begins, there are only a few working men in the shops. They are what are called the old hands in the shop. Nov.'-, they are the price makers. They are making the prices on the garments. They belong actually to the manufacturers. All xhe workers in the season are making the garments as made by the few men working in the shops on contract. The other people in the shop, they do not know if the37- liave contracts or not, and, therefore, we are opposing the contract system. THE CHAIRMAN : Is there any other gentleman who has an}'thing to say on this subject of exacting security? MR. ROSENBERG: It is the custom with nearly each and every manu- facturer to have half a dozen men working on contracts for another reason. If they cannot agree v'ith their employees, who are mostly piece workers, on prices on certain garments — so they say “Don’t make that garment; this ga**- ment will be made by the week.” Our men, those piece workers, who have no contract, are -thinking themselves, if this is the case, they will simply sit in the shop and see the rest of them piled up with work wiiile they are sitting in the shop, and they will make as little as $8 or $io a week, consequently there are half a dozen contract men in the shop, and the rest of the e'mployees are compelled to accept any' kind of price offered by' the manufacturer. Furthermore, the manufacturers in the cloak trade know it that their gar- ments which pay's sometimes a quarter more than it is actually' worth — it happens so that the garment is made of certain material, and the manu- facturer sells them for a better price, so he can afford to have them made a little bit better, so he can afford to pay' 15 or 25 or 50 cents more for that garment, and the operator or tailor, or vdioever figures that price, figures it he has one garment, say. No. i, which cannot be made for the price fixed by' the firm, they will consider that garment No. 2 is 25 cents more; conse- quently, if the operator gets No. i and No. 2 together, he will turn out a week’s wages. The designers and the foremen know this scheme. They' go to work and take all of those garments which pay better, and turn them over to those who are working by the v'eek, and the piece worker is actually' suf- fering and making none but the garments of the cheaper prices. That is whv we object to any week workers in the shop, except the simple hands. • MR. SCHLESSINGER : I want to be fair with you gentlemen. M'e are organized for the purpose of bettering the condition of the people we repre- sent. We are not organized for the purpose of doing mischief. We are 48 organized for the purpose of bettering the condition of the people — the work- ing people. The manufacturers are generally not giving any contracts in times of peace; the manufacturers are giving contracts only in times when they see there is a feeling of unrest in their shops. When the season comes around and most of the people employed in the trade are working at the business, then as soon as some of the manufacturers see that there is a feeling of unrest in the shop, that people are getting ready to settle the pi ice of piece work, the manufacturer picks out four or five men, the more intelli- gent men in the shop, and gives them contracts, and they are checking the movement for increasing the prices on the piece work; of settling them. That is when the contracts are given ; not in the time of peace, but when they see that there is a feeling of unrest in the factory. If they are permitted to do it, it simply means they will stop the movement on the part of the work- ing people to have the price settled when the season comes around. W c are against signing contracts, because signed contracts are only given by the manufacturers with the view of stopping the efforts of the piece workers to get an increase in wages. THE CHAIRMAN : I want to call the attention of you gentlem.en to the fact that while the subject of this particular article of discussion was the exacting of security, very little has been said about exacting security, and this has been discussed mainly on the question of individual contracts. MR. COHEN : A subject which we did not think was going to be discussed here. THE CHAIRMAN : There was no reason to think there would be, front the enumeration. MR. COHEN : I did not expect to discuss the entire matter of contracts. We expected to discuss only the exacting of security. As to the making of contracts we ffnd nothing in the stated grievances on that subject, and we are not prepared to discuss that now. MR. SCHLESSINGER : Security is something that goes hand in hand with contracts. If there is no contract, there is no security. There is security wher- ever there is a contract. When we speak of security we must touch the contract first. They are two sister things ; they go hand in hand. MR. LENNON : They are one and the same subject. THE CHAIRMAN : Is there anything to be said on the question of security further ? MR. COHEN ; Well, I do not want to go into the fundamental question at this time, Mr. Chairman, for the reason that you suggested before, but I can very readily see that there are m.atters involved in the suggestions that have been made on the other side of the table that would prolong this conference very seriously. We have come prepared, as we have stated, to discuss the matters that were stated in the proposition, and to eliminate certain other matters from discussion. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, one of these matters that I understood you were prepared to eliminate is that next subject of discussion (a) the discrimination against union men. MR. COHEN : On that subject we desire to state as emphatically as we can. that we do not intend to discriminate against union men, and are prepared on our behalf to discipline any member of our association who discriminates against union men. THE CHAIRMAN : I do not see, Mr. London, how anything more can be said as to that. MR. SCHLESSINGER : If a man is discharged, and the man feels that he was discharged becouse the employer has discriminated against him, what will be done? 49 THE CHAIRMAN : I will undertake to answer that. That is a subject which would come up in connection with the last topic, the methods of enforcing the agreement, and in connection with that, the subject will be taken up. MR. SCHLESSINGER : For instance, if a man is not getting as much wages as the next fellow — we are speaking of piece workers now — for instance, if one man is not getting as much work as the next man does, and the employer claims that the reason he is not getting as much work is because he is not as competent as the next man, while the union men claim that the reason is not incompetency, but the reason is that he is connected with a union, that he is a union man THE CHAIRMAN : That is the same question — discrimination, which would come up for consideration under the last heading. MR. SCHLESSINGER: What discrimination do you mean? THE CHAIRMAN : Discrimination in any way. That is, making a man — in the first place it would be by not employing him or giving him less favorable conditions of work ; any way of penalizing or punishing him would be discirmina- tion, and it is agreed by the manufacturers, it seems to me, to the proposition as fully as anybody could agree to it, that there shall be no discrimination against any man because he is a member of the union. Now, it is a question, therefore, of the method of enforcing that agreement. The agreement is given in the fullest terms that it will be possible to make. MR. COHEN : Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : What I understand the natural meaning of discrimina- tion to be — and Mr. Cohen will correct me if I am wrong — it is to treat any man in any respect because he is a member of a union. MR. COHEN : That is exactly my understanding. MR. ROSENBERG: Is it not a fact that some manufacturers who are right here present at this conference have a system whereby the moment it is found out that a certain man has joined the union he is fired out of their employment on the next day? THE CHAIRMAN : Now, I will undertake to answer that proposition. Whether that is the fact, or has been the fact in the past is a matter that is imma- terial to the discussion now before us, because Mr. Cohen agrees on behalf of the manufacturers that there shall be no discrimination in the future, and, conse- quently, if such has been the practice, it will cease. If it has not been the prac- tice in that particular establishment that you have in mind, there is no occasion to change the situation, but I do not think we would gain anything by any attack upon what might have been the practice or inclination of any individual manu- facturer in the past, if Mr. Cohen gives his adherence, as he has given in the full- est terms, to the proposition. It is purely a question of providing the means for enforcing the agreement which has been made. MR. COHEN : That is right. THE CHAIRMAN : We can now pass from the fourth to the fifth proposition — the blacklisting of active union men. Now, I understood Mr. Cohen to sav on behalf of the manufacturers that no man should be blacklisted on account of his union activities ; that also is comprehensive and full, and there remains nothing more to be said on that, so far as I can see. MR. COHEN : We are willing to discipline any member of our organization who is shown to be guilty of that practice. THE CHAIRMAN : And I presume that includes also, necessarily, to en- deavor, so far as you can, to suppress the practice in an individual case, if it should arise? MR. COHEN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : I do not see that anybody could ask more than Mr. Cohen has given us assurance of in this matter. 50 MR. LONDON : So far as the principle is concerned. THE CHAIRMAN : Yes, and the rest of it is merely a question of enforcing it. Now, the next proposition for discussion, the sixth, is overtime on night work, it is called. Mr. London, will you state what you have in mind to suggest on that subject? MR. LONDON : The overtime and night work, I wish to state that in the cloak trade, while the old sweat shop system has been to some extent modified, people are compelled to work fifteen and sixteen hours a day. Men and women are worked to death, without regard to life, without regard to safety, or without regard to health. That it is justified by that fierce competiion which prevails among the manufacturers — people attempt to justify it, but it is a practice which, in the interests of humanity, if not in the interests of organized labor, must be stopped. The hours of labor must be regulated. There is no excuse for contin- uing the present practice. Now, in our contract which we have submitted to the trade, and which has been signed by hundreds of them so far, several hundred so far, we have attempted to regulate — to suggest a regulation of the hours of labor in the following manner. MR. COHEN : Have you an extra copy of that ? MR. LONDON : I believe we have. Mr. Lennon, you have an extra copy? (Paper handed to Mr. Cohen by Mr. Lennon.) THE CHAIRMAN : If you will let me have a copy, too. (Paper handed to the Chairman by Mr. London.) MR. LONDON : The following shall be the regular hours of labor : Section 3 of the contract — a working week shall consist of 48 hours in six working days. The following shall be the regular hours of labor. On the first five working days of the week, from 8:00 A. M. to 12:00 noon; from 12:45 P- 5:30 P. M. Saturdays, from 8:00 A. M. to 12:15 P. M., and then the following paragraph which is connected with it — night work — no overtime work shall be permitted between the 15th day of November and the 15th day of January, and during the months of June and July. During the rest of the year employees may be re- quired to work overtime, provided the employees of the firm, as well as all the em- ployees of the outside contractors of the firm are engaged to the full capacity of the factory. No overtime work shall be permitted on Saturday, nor on any day for more than two and a half hours, nor before 8:00 A. M. or after 8:00 P. M. For overtime work the employee shall receive double the usual pay. That does not bear upon it. THE CHAIRMAN : I think for the purpose of discussion it may be well to call attention to a division of this question. One is what the regular limit shall be of a day’s work, and the other is, what limitation shall be placed upon overtime. Of course there are several different subjects to be discussed under the second head, but I think Mr. London, it would be — probably expedite our discussion of this, if now that you have stated the suggestion of the Union, Mr. Cohen should state the views of the manufacturers in regard to, first, the limitation of the regu- lar working day, and secondly, on the question of the limitation of overtime. MR. COHEN ; I should like to ask Mr. London, or some other gentleman, some questions on that. MR. LONDON : I will undertake to answer as many as I can. MR. COHEN : You say the people in your industry work very late ? MR. LONDON: Yes. MR. COHEN : How many hours a day do they work? MR. LONDON : Unlimited hours — day and night ; Saturday and Sunday ; seven days a week. MR. COHEN : What do you mean by unlimited ; that is vague ? 51 MR. LONDON : Well, it is limited to the physical capacity of the man to stand it. M:R. COHEN: Is it as much as 14 hours a day? MR. LONDON: Yes. MR. COHEN: Is it as much as 16 hours a day? MR. LONDON: Yes, simply unlimited. A VOICE: As long as the gas burns. MR. LONDON: They come at 5.00 A. M. and stay until 11:00 or 12:00 at night, and then some of them like the work so much that they take the work home. This is perhaps the only contract in the world where people ask for the privilege of working eleven hours a day, and in the year 1910. We are asking for the privilege of working eleven hours a day, during eight mouths of the year, because the conditions in the trade are so wild that we cannot revolutionize i1 or do everything at once. We ask for permission to work eleven hours a day. MR. COHEN : I am very glad to hear Mr. London say that we cannot revolutionize things in the industry, because one of the things we shall not attempt to do on our behalf is to revolutionize conditions in the industry. If we approach the solution of these difficulties, with the understanding that we must do things gradually, it is a long step forward in the decision of a great many troublesome cjuestions, and will enable me to come back to the conference after we have discussed things, with the hope that some of the suggestions will be considered rationally, and with due reflection, and with a recognition of the thing Mr. London has just said — that we cannot revolu- tionize the industry. Now, in that connection may I say this — in this industry we are dealing with probably the most thrifty and energetic people that have ever come to this country. The fact that so many of the manufacturers of our city in this industry have arisen from the ranks, indicates very clearly that they have been able by reason of their energy^ to accumulate the necessary capital to become employers, and it is one of the classics of our industry that the striking employee of five years ago to-day is the ungenerous and unmagnanimous boss of to-day. It is one of the conditions of the industry. TIow, one of the things that we cannot revolutionize, klr. Chairman, is human i t o re, and the human nature which we find in this particular industr}- i\IR. LONDON: I suggest that the discussion of human nature be elimi- nated. That is my first discourteous interruption. 'I HE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cohen was saying that they could not under- tcko to revolutionize the trade. MR. COHEN: I have been trained to understand what is relevant and material, and to distinguish between rhetoric and fact, and I do not see how we can meet a situation without stating a fact. We have a situation where the human nature of our employees is such that on our part we have a very serious problem. The problem must be considered in a very broad way by the people around this table, and cannot be decided hastily. We are dealing with a constantly increasing number of people, who are coming into the industry, and we are dealing with the constantly increasing number of manufacturers who are coming into the industry. If we regulate our fac- tories, open our doors at a certain hour, and close our doors at a certain hour, we have at least done our share toward fixing tlie price of labor, but the pieceworkei knows no hours of labor when he is without restraint, and the language of my distinguished friend, Mr. London, or any other lawyer put upon paper in any declaration that could be made, could not revolutionize our industry so as to prevent the pieceworker from working at all hours of 52 the night, if you gave him any opportunity to do it, and 1 venture the pre- diction, gentlemen, that no matter what agreement we enter into as to the hours of labor in our shops, that we shall have more to contend with in tne freedom on the part of those who do not belong to our organization or to yurs, in working longer than those hours of labor. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I am not very optimistic as to the outcome of our agreement upon this question. We can observe, on our part, the contract which we shall make, because we possess the keys to our factories, but how you will guarantee to perform on the part of your people that they will not work at piece w'ork i6 or i8 hours a day, outside of our fatcories, we shall be very interested to learn when we come to the discussion of the mechanical means of arriving at that result. Now, so far as the specific time mentioned is concerned, I understand that this is a debatable subject, and I shall take that up with my people. I understand that the proposition is contained in these paragraphs. I will give you a definite answer on that proposition after conferring with my clients. MR. LONDON : That is satisfactory. MR. COHEN: I am calling to your attention, sir, as counsel for your people, to the most difficult problem that you have to meet. MR. BLOCH: I want to say with reference to that that we realize that this is possibly one of the most difficult problems that we will have among our people. We realize they want to work as many hours as possible to earn as much money as they can. We also realize that what we call the legitimate manufacturer who works on a nine or a nine and a half hour basis, he is put to a disadvantage in disposing of his merchandise for this reason. To come back to the unscrupulous employer working under dieffrent oenditions, that is, the conditions existing in his place, that when a buyer happens to patronize one of our more fair employers who happens to be working on a nine hour basis, arid tries to place an order — a lo or 14 day order, and the employer naturally is working to the extent of his capacity — finds that he is handicapped. This same buyer is in a position to go to this so called unscrupulous employer again and place his order there. This man is in a position, and knows that the people who work for him, if he goes to them at five o’clock and says, “I have accepted an order for certain merchan- dise, and have to have it out in 10 days,” he knows that he can take that order and turn it out, because they will work at night or any other time to get it out. There is no one that can change or improve those conditions any better than a labor organization, because if we curtail the hours of labor of our people we equalize the output of that unfair employer. We realize that a fair employer is up against a hard game, and it is only a matter of time, while he tries to be fair to the working people of his shop, he is com- pelled to compete with the other people, and to put to that disadvantage, and we are therefore trying to look at both sides of the question; that is, something to the inteiest of the manufacturer and the employee both, and that is to arrange a stipulated number of hours that the people can be em- ployed. We will enforce our end of it, and the other side will enforce their end of it, and only by stipulating the number of hours that people shall work and promising enforcement of the same by both sides can we actually equalize or try to equalize these conditions. I do not feel that we can revolutionize the trade m a minute; still it will bring some good results, and results will be shown to such an extent that the trade will be benefited by it. THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that Mr. Cohen has already agreed that he will consider that with his committee — that he will consider with 53 them the number of hours of the limit to which the day may be limited and the question of overtime; that he is not ready now to make a definite sug- gestion; that he agrees to the proposition that there should be some limit, and that it is a question as to how that shall be enforced. MR. BLOCH: I merely wanC to ask one thing of counsel on the other end, that they take into consideration this universal work. MR. COHEN: Mr. Bloch need not call my attention to this. I want to ask Mr. Bloch this question. Do I understand you to say, sir, that if as the result of this conference we agree upon a stipulation between your organiza- tion and ours, that you in your organization are prepared to enforce by rigorous discipline against your members the observance of these hours of labor ? MR. BLOCH: Yes. MR. ROSENBERG: We can do it, on the condition that the manufac- turers will also agree that in case we should expel any members for not observing the eight hour day, they should not take them into their employ- ment. IVrR. COHEN : We will agree to that, whatever the hour may be. That is, I understand, Mr. Chairman, that we, on our side, may proceed in the formulation of our ideas upon this hypothesis, that if an agreement is reached as to the number of hours and the overtime as what we believe is at present a standard to which the trade should conform — that if we agree on our part to discipline our members for violation of that standard or rule, the Union on its part will agree to discipline its members if we agree on our part not to employ in any of our shops any of the men disciplined by the Union. THE CHAIRMAN : That is what I understand. MR. BLOCH: That is right. MR. LONDON: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me see if I am right in this assumption, that not only in regard to this proposition, but in regard to any proposition on which we may agree here, that each party would agree to use its powers of discipline to enforce the compliance with the agreement. The question of the particular remedv is a question we will discuss later. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN : And that you would do it is to be expected just as much as the fact that you agree upon the article itself. MR. COHEN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, then, we will pass to the next question, namely, the question of holidays and Sundays, Mr. London. MR. LONDON : That is to some extent connected with what I said before. Our people work seven days anyway, and in addition to that our week workers expect to be paid for legal holidays, so that this is closely connected with the sub- ject of com.pensation, as well as with the regulation of labor. THE CHAIRMAN : Yes, and are you prepared to say anything on that sub- ject now, Mr. Cohen? MR. COHEN : I see that they are connected ; that the question, as Mr. London found it necessary to include in his paragraph there, a reference to the payment for overtime — that the Sunday and holiday matter must be included. J take it that in this industry, like in every other, that at the height of the season, holidays and Sundays are required, and we are prepared to consider the proposition as outlined by Mr. London and report upon it. 54 MR. LONDON : If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I want to read Sec- tion 7 of our contract. ‘‘No employee shall be required to work on any of the ten legal holidays.” MR. COHEN : Isn’t that except during the busy season? MR. LONDON : We have no exception in the contract. ‘‘All legal holidays shall be paid for. The refraining from work on the ist of May celebration shall not be considered a breach of the contract.” That is Sec- tion 7. MR. COHEN : I do not understand that this means that no employee shall be required to work on any of the ten legal holidays ; all legal holidays shall be paid for. THE CHAIRMAN : That is, if men work by the week, the pro rata for the holidays is not deducted from the week’s work. MR. COHEN : They may work on legal holidays, but they are to be paid for it? MR. ROSENBERG : No, they shall get paid without working. THE CHAIRMAN : That applies, in the first place, to men who work by the week. They are to receive the full week’s pay, although it happens that one of the days is a holiday. MR. COHEN : I see. THE CHAIRMAN : The second proposition is that even if they are paid, they cannot be compelled to work on a holiday. Take a piece worker — that a piece worker could not be compelled to work on a holiday, although he is paid for the work that he does. MR. COHEN ; I see. How about houses that keep closed on Saturdays and Jewish holidays? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bloch, are you prepared to^answer that? MR. BLOCH : Yes. We want to say that as American citizens we naturally do not recognize no religious holidays, but we do want to enjoy all the legal holi- days. The majority of our members are Hebrews, possibly 75 to 80 per cent. — ■ still we believe that living in a free country where legal holidays are created for the purpose of rest and recreation and so on, that we want to make our people observe those holidays. We have always observed the holidays in one branch of our trade, and always received compensation therefor. The evil began, as suggested by one gentleman — if you paid double time for working on legal holi- days, I believe that would be an unfair proposition to ask an employer to pay double time for legal holidays, because if we could work for double rates on a holiday we would have just as much right to work for single time on a holiday. We do not want any work on legal holidays. As far as Sunday is observed, those who observe Saturday as the Sabbath can work on Sunday. MR. COHEN: Those who do not work on Saturday can work on Sunday? MR. BLOCH: Yes. MR. COHEN : What are your ten legal holidays? MR. GREENBERGER: New Year’s Day, Lincoln’s Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Decoration Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Election Day, Colum- bus Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas — legal holidays of the State of New York. MR. COHEN : May I ask whether — I assume that these provisions as to regular hours of labor and other things are subject to qualification in the case of sample hands where samples have to be made up in a special time to get them out, or else there will be no work in the shop. MR. LONDON : I do not so understand. I understand that sample workers are to begin their work in time — a month or two before. MR. COHEN : I do not so understand. 55 MR. LECOURT : That is the very question I raised — whether the gentlemen who were going to discuss these questions had a knowledge of the business as it is to-day. That is an answer to one of them. Mr. London naturally has felt, and sincerely — I do not mean any insincerity on my part — that the samples on the part of the cloak and suit manufacturers were made at the beginning of the season before he starts. Now, our samples only start when the women begin to wear the stuff; not at the beginning of the season. That was the fact ten or fifteen )^ears ago, but not to-day. MR. LONDON : I wish to say that the knowledge of some members of the committee representing the Union is much more extensive than that of the manu- facturers. MR. LECOURT : That is your opinion. MR. LONDON : The knowledge of many manufacturers being limited by the walls of his own factory, while the knowledge of most of these men is ex- tensive. MR. COHEN : I shall interrupt Mr. London, as he interrupted me. We are not concerned with the quantum of knowledge on either side. MR. LONDON : All right. THE CHAIRMAN : I want to make one suggestion which bears upon this matter, and probably upon a great many of the others. It is obvious and admitted by everybody that the trade cannot be revolutionized, but it is perfectly possible for this conference, which looks not only to the immediate future, but to the more remote future, to recognize as an evil certain conditions which they do not feel able immediately to remedy, and I think that each side in considering what may appear to be an evil they want to consider not only what can be done to-day, but what can be recognized as the right thing to do as soon as it can be brought about. Now, I have this question of overtime and excess work at certain seasons — I have had personally occasion to consider it in other trades, and have found to how great an extent the men in the trade, by co-operation, can reduce the overtime and the congestion of work by spreading the work over an entire period, and I think in any of these matters, if you should recognize that to be desired, and recognize it as something to be worked for, that in the future you would find yourselves to go very much further perhaps than you may practically be able to do in the year 1910, and in reaching many of these results perhaps in regard to the times of labor and overtime, and many of the other things, that you may be able to recog- nize and apparently to be striven for, so that your committees which may be or- ganized later will be able to consider the means for carrjdng out better at a later time what you may not be able to carry out now. MR. GREENBERGER: Just a few words to enlighten the gentlemen as to how a majority of the people will benefit by observing holidays. On New Year’s Day a majority of the people are not working; on Lincoln’s and Washington’s Birthdays they are in the height of the season. Decoration Day, a majority of the people are out of employment. Independence day, a majority of the people are out of employment. Labor Day again is in the height of the season, and the people will benefit by that. Election Day a majority of the people are out of employment ; Columbus Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas a majority of them are out of employment, which leaves only three holidays. In this season they will be benefitted by possibly four holidays. During a majority of the holidays the majority of the people will reap no benefit by it, because they would be out of employment anyway. THE CHAIRMAN : How would it be with regard to those employed by the week ? 56 MR. GREENBERGER : It naturally affects only those employed by the week. The majority of them will not be employed during the time of the other six holi- days. MR. POLAKOFF : I would like to state that for the last i8 years I am work- ing in this trade, and I always worked on samples, and I always got paid when I am working. I get paid for these holidays, too. THE CHAIRMAN : I think it would be better on both sides to avoid men- tioning any particular establishment or any particular person that we speak of. MR. ROSENBERG: In all legitimate houses holidays are paid for. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything further on the subject of holidays and Sundays ? MR. LENNON : They said they would take it up in connection with the mat- ter of hours for labor. THE CHAIRMAN : We come now to the question of irregular payment of wages. ]!\IR. LONDON : The irregular payment of wages consists in this in the com- plaint : In some places our men are paid once in two weeks. In the most cases they are not paid in cash. In most places they are paid by check, and many of them are compelled to cash their checks in saloons. It is an evil that should be done away with. The provision in our contract with reference to that point is this : '‘Wages shall be paid in cash to pieceworkers on each Monday for work done up to the previous Saturday. To week workers on Saturdays.” That is the recommendation we make to the trade on — the demand we make upon the trade. MR. DYCHE: One of the greatest evils in our trade is the irregular payment of wages. I will cite an example, a concrete example, and show you. I was work- ing for probably the largest firm in the United States on cloaks, and in this firm there was no stipulated date. It was either Wednesday or Thursday, and it hap- pened in one particular instance that I waited Wednesday two hours, from six to eight, and was told they would pay on Thursday. On Thursday they began to pay, instead of at six, as we thought — they began to pay after seven, and before it came to my turn it was eight o’clock, and the man said he could not wait any longer and I got my pay on Friday, after waiting another hour or two. I wasted prac- tically three days waiting for my pay, and this is not an exception. We do not know when we will be paid. We have to stand in line waiting our turn. THE CHAIRMAN ; I understand, Mr. Dyche, that the grievance of irregu- larity consists, in the first place, of uncertain periods ; that is, it might be one week or two weeks, and in the second place, it consists in the difficulty, such as you described, as to the uncertainty, even after assuming that a given period of pay is made at one time? MR. DYCHE : Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : And in the third place, the objection is as to the medium or method of payment, the same being in check instead of by cash. MR. DYCHE : Another thing is in the majority of houses you work a week and get nothing, and at the end of the second week you get the first week, and the employer has a whole week’s wages, and then the employee is not sure when he will get the second week. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, Mr. Cohen, will you state the position of the manu- facturers, if you are prepared to do so. MR. COHEN : I will state this as the tentative position. So far as the ma- jority of the members of our association is concerned, as far as we know, payment by check is the exception. Whether or not the houses who pay by check can be induced to change their paying system we must ascertain. With regard to the payment at the end of the week, at a definite time, I think that can be arranged for. 57 The real difficulty in this situation is the payment by piecework, for piecework, which requires considerable bookkeeping and the arranging of pay envelopes, and the getting together of the account of the workers, and I am told by some of the members that it is physically impossible to get the piece payroll out by Monday. THE CHAIRMAN : Well, I suppose that you could find out whether it would be necessary to extend it to Tuesday or Wednesday. A VOICE: That is what is done to-day. MR. COHEN : Yes, that is what is done to-day. THE CHAIRMAN : I assume this, Mr. Cohen, that you agree entirely with the gentlemen as to the desirability of having payments made frequently, of having it paid in cash, and of having it made as nearly as possible after the date when the work has been performed for a given period, and it is merely a question of a prac- tical arrangement by which to carry out that result? MR. COHEN : Exactly. I will willingly concede, for the sake of argument, though I do not know the fact, that there have been abuses on the part of some of the manufacturers, but where the business has reached a standard and they have bookkeeping methods, and where the capital of the business is large enough, there is no doubt that the manufacturer pays his workers as promptly as he can. It may be that we will have to establish for the general industry a standard that already prevails in the best shops of the city. I want to call the attention of the gentlemen here who are more familiar with manufacturing than bookkeeping that there are certain methods of bookkeeping that have to be done. THE CHAIRMAN : There is a certain time record to figure the piece rate, and it is a question of how great a time it takes. MR. COHEN: Exactly. MR. LENNON : I have not talked to a single one of these men over on this side of the table on this question, but I am confident that if regular payments in cash were made and adhered to the year round, there would be no objection, if it were Tuesday, for instance, or any day you like. MR. SILVERMAN : The hardest part of the pay day is caused by the em- ployee himself. We practically pay almost every day at the demand of the em- ployee. Our pay days are, as a rule, Tuesdays. They have a lot of v;ork that the think they will be able to finish by to-morrow. They do not look far enough ahead to see that the pay day for the following week would cover that, but they want to get it into this week. The payroll is immediately held up for these gar- ments to be passed. Then, again, the operator will be finished with his garments and the finisher is not finished with his, and the presser is not finished. The operator demands his pay ; the garment has not come into our receiving room, and naturally we can only pay for garments that are absolutely finished and passed. We have a triplicate system of tickets, and the foreman will take off these tickets and pass them as finished, and then come around and collect the garments after- wards, and sometimes we have waited two weeks before that garment has come through that we have already paid for, and it will take us two weeks, and the em- ployee is not in a particular hurry to finish the garment, because it has already been paid for. That is a system that should be done away with. We are willing to pay for any garment that is finished, but we should not be asked to pay for any garment that is half finished. MR. POLAKOFF : Is it not a fact that in the large factories they are not getting paid, even when you are short on buttons — when you are short for but- tons or a piece of trimming, and the whole coat is completely finished? It is not the fault of the tailor. He needs the money ; it is not the fault of the tailor. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, Mr. Polakoff, is it not a fact that such instances — such causes of dissatisfaction as Mr. Silverman has just mentioned, on the one 58 hand, and as you have mentioned on the other, are all the matters that could prob- ably be handled if you laid down a definite rule? Could probably be handled by the Committee of Grievances in each shop which deals with such subjects? MR. POLAKOFF : We will have trouble. I am myself a tailor, and I know absolutely what they are doing in the shops. TFIE CFIAIRMAN ; Mr. Polakofif, isn’t this the proposition? If you all agreed — that is, if the manufacturers agreed with you that there should be a cer- tain once a week for paying for all work that is done, making that day as nearly after the end of the week which you work as is possible, then you have agreed upon a principle which should be applied, which would doubtless be acceptable to every- body? Then if there are particular difficulties, such as you have suggested, they have got to be met, and a way has got to be worked out, as far as possible, to meet those special difficulties, but those are exceptional cases. It is the general rule which we have got to agree upon. MR. ROSENBERG: The way I understand. this conference, it is simply an expression of opinion whether our demands are justified or not. I understand this conference differently entirely. I understand the conference we should go to work immediately and abolish and decide upon a certain policy, how we should be guided in the future. We cannot go to work and bring up each and every difficulty which may arise, before the Board of Arbitration for determination. For instance, I have some knowledge in the manufacturing line, although I have never been a manu- facturer in my life, but being a foreman for about a year or two years I know that in a good many cases hundreds of garments were finished, pressed, ready to be shipped, but the buttons were not sewed on — the buttons could not be turned out as quick as was necessary — and the garments were laying in the factory for weeks, and the tailors could not get their pay. Furthermore, I wish to say I am an operator, for instance ; I have done my share of the work ; my work is completed. Why should I wait until the finisher finishes that garment? Am I responsible foi another part of the work? If the finisher gets crazy and lets that garment lay in the shop four weeks, do you mean to say that while that garment lays in the shop I should not get paid ? I also wish to say that the garment may be finished by the operator and the finisher, but the presser — there are not enough pressers in the shop — the presser cannot turn out the work as quick as the operator and the finisher makes them, so there is another delay for a week, and there are gentlemen in this room who will not deny the fact, unless they do not know what is going on in their factories ; people have come to work for them and worked for three weeks before they got paid for three or four garments, although they have made in the first week $20.00 or $25.00, and when the three weeks were around they were told tliat there were only three or four garments that have been delivered. The rest have not been delivered. Furthermore, if an operator or tailor leaves his em- ployment or changes places, after he changes places he has to run for his pay for six weeks in succession. The first week two or three garments are pressed and delivered, and the next week two or three more are pressed and delivered, and he loses more than the value of his work by running after his money. We want to abolish this right away. If the operator has done his share of the work he should be paid on Monday, whether the finisher has finished it or not. It is immaterial whether the garment is delivered or not. That is none of our business. THE CHAIRMAN : That raises a very specific and very interesting and im- portant question, which has not been brought up before, and which is a perfectly definite question for the consideration of all parties ; that is, whether the pay for a given piece of work on a given garment, when any one man’s work is finished, whether it is to be paid for at the end of the week in which it is done or at the end 59 of a subsequent week in which the garment itself is finished by others. I under- stand that Mr. Cohen will take that into consideration. MR. ROSENBERG; If the Chair requests me, I will furnish the names of those gentlemen here. THE CHAIRMAN : I would rather request you not to do it. MR. COHEN : May I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether upon this proposition there is any definite concrete suggestion on the part of Mr. London? THE CHAIRMAN : I understand the suggestion made by Mr. Rosenberg, which I suppose expresses the view of all of Mr. London’s clients, is that the rule should be laid down that when any man finishes his work on a particular garment, he shall be paid for that work on the first pay day after the end of the week in which that work has been finished, even though some other person’s work on the same garment may not be finished until some subsequent week. As a matter of fact, in some other trades that principle which I happen to know — -which I have been over in some other connection — is pursued. For instance, in the shoemaking trade. The work covered is the work that has been done by the man when that is finished. I do not know how far it is feasible in your business, but that is the principle adopted in the shoemaking trade. MR. COHEN : • I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that there will be any serious difficulty about the acceptance of this principle. The better class of manufacturers have long since adopted it, and I think that as a statement of a principle we shall be ready to follow it out. All that we shall to do is patiently to work out the other problem of bookkeeping on the piecework, as to the date of payment, and I do not think that is such a serious matter, because if the day comes every seven days it does not make any difference whether it comes on Wednesday or on Tuesday. THE CHAIRMAN : I think that is very promising. MR. SCHLESSINGER : I do not like to drink any water flavored with roses. I believe this question should be discussed right now, as well as all other questions. For instance, such an important proposition as the regularity of payment of wages, a question like this particularly should be discussed in the presence of all of us, and if the manufacturers have anything to say about it, let them stand up and say whatever they please. I think we can give them some pointers on it. If the manu- facturers should discuss this privately there would not be a single one of us to answer their questions, but if this question could be discussed in the presence of all of us a good many questions could be answered by us. I, for one, would like to prove that in a good many shops where wages are being paid irregularly it is not the fault of the employer, but the fault of the man who works for the em- ployer. I know of cases where people who do not have their work finished get their money, because they pay a certain part of it to the foreman. So, as I said, the assurances of Counselor Cohen appear to me as drinking rose water — water flavored with roses. M'R. COHEN : I protest against that. MR. SCHLESSINGER: I do not intend to criticise you, but why not take up this very question now? THE CHAIRMAN : As a matter of fact it does not seem profitable to discuss a proposition which is already admitted by the manufacturers. This particular matter is already admitted. Mr. Cohen stated, answering I\Ir. Rosenbef'g’s discussion of a very important point, that he thought there was no reason why that should not be done. If he says so, I do not see why we should discuss it. MR. COHEN : May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I gave my assurance at the beginning of this conference to expedite matters. I have pledged my people on this side of the table not to lengthen the conference by discussing 60 differences between them at this conference, and simply to make suggestions which will facilitate them in deciding what they can do. It will be an interm- inable conference if we are to discuss before you, sir, any differences that may exist in our own councils, and we have refrained from such discussion. We believe it will expedite matters for us to come to a conclusion and report to you what our conclusion is. We cannot bind 150 people any more than you can bind your people, except after a well considered plan. I am sorry that Mr. Schlessinger found occasion for saying that anything that I said was in the nature of rose water. THE CHAIRMAN : I think, Mr. Schlessinger, you do not fully under- stand Mr. Cohen’s position. I think we will make the best progress by pass- ing to the next subject — to that of sub-contracting. MR. COHEN : Mr. London, it is eighteen minutes past four now. I think you and I v.ill agree that the sub-contracting matter is probably one of the largest subjects we have to deal with. I will agree to immediately go into conference with my people this eA^ening and will agree to go into con- ference with .them, again to-morrow morning, and be prepared to state our position with reference to all of these other matters when we resume to- morrow, if we take an adjournment now. If that is not agreeable to you, I am willing to go on. MR. LONDON : I think we should go on now. THE CHAIRMAN; Very well. We will take up the subject of sub- contracting. MR. LONDON : The subject of sub-contracting emphasizes more than any other the evils in the trade — the impossible conditions that prevail. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, describe precisely what you have in mind. MR. LONDON : W’hat I have in mind is this. The eniplo)rer relieves himself of the responsibility, both moral and legal responsibility, by hiring a contractor, an irresponsible person, financially and otherwise irresponsible, who hires 15 or 20 or 25 men, and who employs these people THE CHAIRMAN : Do you refer to people working within the shop or outside of the shop? MR. .LONDON; Within the shop. They are known as contractors. The employer is not responsible at all to those engaged as a sub-contractor. THE CHAIRMAN; Within his own shop? MR. LONDON ; Within his own shop. Of course the wages of these people who work for the sub-contractor are almost nothing, and this is a very important evil. We are trying to educate the masses that they should not stand for it, and we want the assistance of the manufacturers in this regard. MR. DYCHE; The system of sub-contracting goes further. Mr. London spoke of the inside contractor. It goes to a sub-contractor in the factory. You have a certain department, say a skirt department, and you have a skirt contractor, and this contractor hires 10 or 15 men, and each one of them hires three or four other men, and you have a system of sub-sub-contracting, so that a man who actually performs the work, he is re.sponsible to an employer, and he in turn is responsible to another. THE CHAIRMAN ; All within the factory? MR. DYCHE; All within the factory. MR. COHEN; What is the remedy that you propose? MR. DYCHE ; That the employer should be responsible to each individual employee in the factory. MR. COHEN; For his wages? 61 MR. jDYCHE: Both for wages, hours and conditions. MR. COHEN: This illustrates the vice of a discussion where there is a divided view on the other side of the table. As far as practicable, L do not want to present any divided view, except that I shall state where it is a divided view. T should like to have from the other gentlemen a definite statement upon the record which I can pick up to-morrow, as to what their remedy is for this condition. THE CHAIRMAN : I would ask Mr. London to state that on behalf of his clients. MR. LONDON : Well, my clients ask that no sub-contractor should be permitted in any factory. M R. COHEN : That is a broader statement than you made a minute ago. MR. LONDON : That is the same substance of it. MR. COHEN : I am prepared to discuss that proposition in certain phases now. I believe to abolish — I am not sure that we can arrive at a decision on that without a very lengthy conference. I have had some dis- cussion with the manufacturers with reference to this systeVn, and I am frank enough to say to you gentlemen that I can see that it opens the door to very considerable abuse. The siub-contracting system in the factory offers a reward to the efficient executives who have not any capital, so far as I can ascertain the facts. A man who is a good organizer of pieces of a garnient can find the assistants to make the garment, and utilize the worker whose special skill is confined to a particular branch of the garment for that particular branch of the garment, while using another of equal skill to make another part of the garment. Now, the business man who is running the factory on economic lines is induced by the person who possesses this executive ability to give to him the garment by the piece, like one who would give 'a coat to a tailor, and that man will then employ the necessary assistants to complete the garment. Mr. Lennon will recall the time when the tailor would send out his pants or his vests — the merchant tailor, to be made at home, and pay the man the price for making the vest or the trousers or the coat. When I was in the tailoring business, besides the inside work, that was the way in which it was done. Now, because the tenement house labor has been abolished, and sanitary conditions are to a certain extent at least enforced by law, that kind of work is now done in the factory, run by the employer, and the men who used to get a certain sum of money for making a particular garment can now do that work with such assistants as he himself finds right in the factory. THE CHAIRMAN ; That is, it is precisely the same system as before, except that the place of doing the work is the factory instead of the home? MR. COHEN : Exactly. Now, in some of the better class of factories, that is not the system. Where the higher grade of garment is manufactured and where artistic beauty is as much a commercial quantity as utility of the garment, the employer is of necessity obliged to have the personal contact with the individual working on the garment, and so, of necessity, that sys- tem does not exist where the higher grade of garments are made. Where the cheaper garments are made, however, it is a most revolutionary thing — I mean “revolutionary” not in any invidious sense, but it would revolutionize the industry to suddenly change that system. I think the manufacturers have come to realize that it would be more desirable having — if a system could be devised that would do away with that, but around the council board of cur manufacturers practical difficulties have been disclosed by those who are familiar with that system of doing the work, that so far have presented 62 insurmountable objections. I think it will be feasible to make the manu- facturer responsible for the payment of the wages of those who work for the so-called sub-contractor. I think it will be feasible to fix a minimum wage for those who assist the contractor, but so radical a step as now pro- posed by Mr. London, to abolish the system of sub-contracting would be, 1 am afraid, to revolutionize instead of evolutionize the industry. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Cohen, I think it would probably result in an aid to the manufacturers who are following that method, if you could state, or perhaps, if one of your delegates would state the particular difficulties which present themselves in any effort to change that, so that the other gentlemen here may know them, and may make other suggestions, if they have any to make, with a view to solving the difficulty. MR. COHEN : Mr. Polomon may state some of these difficulties. MR. POLOMON : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we manufacture skirts. We employ a tailor who understands a skirt thoroughly. He brings along with him an assistant — the assistant — and he also engages a finisher. Now, we hand him — he has a machine or he might bring in a partner with him. 'We hand the both ofj them, say, 50 skirts. One of them will sew up' the seams, the other one — the finisher will finish, and the other one will trim, and we pay the one person ; he is responsible. He probably has four or five people under his control, but we are responsible for the payment of the rest of those people. W'^e make the price with the one individual. If we had to go to engage these men individually to make this skirt, we would not be able to turn out one-tenth of the skirts we do. One is good for oper- ating, one is good for basting and pleats, one hand is good for trimming overgarments ; we could not engage all the single people to make a skirt. We do not nvike anything but the medium and cheap price work. We might have a hundred different departments in the place ; one department might consist of one or two people, and another might consist of five, and another of six or seven. THE CHAIRMAN ; I ask for the purpose of information, wouldn’t it be possible to have — as it is now you have in all a certain number of skirt makers — I mean men who do the same work ; there are a certain number of men who are practically in the position of assistants to them MR. POLOMON: That is exactly what it is; assistant to this tailor. THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. Now, what would be the difficulty in your paying directly the man who makes the skirt; the man who assists, and the man, if there be such, the man who sews the buttons, and any other man v/ho does the trimming or whatever it may be, that each one of these should be paid according to the work that he does. MR. POLOMON: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : Directly by you, instead of by this one superior and more skilled workingman, practically as an employer himself of the button sewer or the seam sewer. MR. POLOMON: 'We could do that very well. We could be respon- sible for any one of the operator’s pay. THE CHAIRMAN : That would be merely a question of the division of labor. MR. POLOMON: That is about all. But we could not employ any of the others to make a skirt. THE CHAIRMAN : So. I do not mean to employ any of the others to make a skirt, hut you could have a division of labor. In the other trades that I referred to, the shoemaking trade, with which I am quite familiar, the 63 work is sub-divided there in such a way that there are perhaps a hundred different operations in the making of a single shoe, and a hundeed different classes of peojple are divided up doing the work ; but they do not find it necessary in that trade to put any one of those in the position of a sub-con- tractor. They put them in the position of simply doing a portion of the work. They pay them according to their ability, whatever the value is of that particular portion. They pay them for the operation. MIR. POLOMON : We have also a section in our houses whereby we employ operators on a cheaper class of skirt, by the week. We pay them by the week, and we pay the finishers by the week, and we naturally pay the pressers separately, but if we should look for individual tailors to make a skirt, complete, we could not do it. THE CHAIRMAN : I understand the difficulty that you w'ere considering that comes not of dividing up the labor, but you adopted this method on the theory of not having a clear division yourself among the labor, but you let the sub-contractor make the division. MR. POLOMON: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, as I say, in the shoe business that division of labor is quite as great as you could get in your business, and they make them all, coming from the shop. MR. POLOMON : Yes, but our styles change nearly every day. THE CHAIRMAN : It makes no difference whether the styles change. MR. SCHLESSINGER : The reason we are against sub-contracting is not because we are against the division of labor. It would probably — if it were left to us, we would be against the division of labor, because a division of labor makes a poor mechanic or a non-mechanic, but we are against having sub-contractors, simply because we are having too many agents to pay com- missions of the wages of the workingmen. You have a skirt maker and you pay him so much for a skirt. That skirt maker employs four or five men. In a good many cases he employs 20 men, but we will take the one that I have stated. He employs five persons. Now, that contractor that employs five persons, will not do it for love. He certainly wants to make something off it. Naturally he pays a lower price than you are paying him. You understand that. MR. POLOMON: Yes, I understand that. MR. SCHLESSINGER: Now, we do not want him to be getting a lower price than you are paying the other man. MR. COHEN : M r. London, you have signed contracts with a number of manufacturers in which you have attempted to solve this problem. How have you attempted to solve it? MR. LONDON : In some individual cases we succeeded. In others we modified it to some extent, and in most cases we yielded to the demand of the manufacturers, and that system has practically continued in most cases against our protest. MR. LENNON: You do not mean recently? MR. LONDON : No, I do not mean those who have signed recentlv. You Avere referring to the agreements in the past. MR. COHEN: No, these agreements now. MR. LCiNDON : Oh, no, in each and every agreement that Ave haA'e signed now the employer has signed this clause 5 : “No contracting or sub- contracting shall be permitted by the firm inside of its factory, and no oper- ator or finisher shall employ more than one helper.” 64 MR. SCHLESSINGER : Not only do I want to speak about the skirt maker, but I also want to speak about the presser. I know a good many shops who have gentlemen representing them here, where the pressers are all employed by the firm directly, and on the other hand, I know of a good many shops, also members of the association, where the presser cannot get employment unless he is willing to work for a sub-contractor, or, in other words, having to pay a part of his wages as commission to a sub-contractor. We are against the payment (of commission. We are not in this line of business, and we do not expect to share our wages with anybody. THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the abuses of the system of the middleman are not disputed at all. The particular question which we are here to discuss is how these difficulties of the manufacturer can be overcome, and which Mr. Rosenberg will make his suggestions on. MR. COHEN : May I suggest, before Mr. Rosenberg speaks, that up to this point we have only had one suggestion ; that was to abolish the system of sub-contracting. I have only to say tO' the gentlemen on the other side C'f the table that we are not at all confident that it can be abolished at this time, and my question is now directed to the purpose of having from the other side any suggestions or remedies, in case the system cannot be entirely abolished. That is what I want, for practical purposes. THE CHAIRMAN : Don't you want also any suggestions which would aid you in overcoming that difficulty which you find in abolishing it? MR. COHEN : Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. The manufacturer knows the difficulties of his business better than I possibly can learn in a few weeks, and I am confident that if there is any possible rvay by which it can be overcome, it will be overcome. The outcome — the results of the system so far as they are good, have been pointed out. and so far as they are bad have been pointed out, but there are some of our people who feel very strongly that the time has not yet arrived when the system can be abolished, as a practical matter. THE CHAIRMAN: What I want to say, and I thought it would aid us — all of us — to have a statement, not of the fact that you deem it impos- sible or difficult to abolish it, but why it is — what the practical difficulty is. MR. ROSENBIERG: I will explain the reason why the manufacturers do not want to abolish it. THE CHAIRMAN: No, I do not want to know the reason why they do not want to abolish it, but I want to know what the particular difficulty is in abolishing it. I thmk we all want to know that. Mr. Polomon stated one difficulty as he viewed it. I understand there are one or two others of your delegates that have suggestions of specific difficulties. If we can hear a specific suggestion bom Mr. Rosenberg. MR. COHEN : Mr. Rosenberg is not accustomed to retaining his points as long as I am, and I think he should be given the floor before me. MR. ROSENBERG: I want to make it as clear as I possibly can. Mr. Cohen has stated in the beginning that the reason why the manufacturers have a system of sub-contracting is because there are men who have the organizing ability to divide — to put on different men on different parts of the garment, and that consequently the garments are turned out cheaper and probably much better than those made by an individual. I am here to dispute this statement of Mr. Cohen. In the first place, I will show you an instance. Take, for instance, pressers. There is no skill in organizing pressers. Any presser can do any pressing, all kinds of pressing. There is no requirement of any extra ability or intelligence to get 50 pressers together and sweat them to death and pay them as less as they possibly can, and to 65 tuna out the garments. For instance, in case of a gentleman who is right here at this conference, he has about 50 or 75 pressers. He goes to work and pays his pressers 10 or 15 or 25 cents for pressing a garment; I don’t know exactly how much he pays. He engages two pressers or three or five. They should do the entire work for the shop. .Those two or three perssers have either the chance of having money to put up as security for the full amount of their agreement, and consequently they are on friendly relations with the foreman or the superintendent, and to them the job is allotted. He goes to work and picks up men who have never been pressers from the street, and pays one $3.00 a week, $5.00 to the next, $5.50 and $6.00 or $8.00 and up to $10.00 or $12.00. The pressers who are capable in the trade, have been in it for 12 or 15 years, on account of this condition cannot get a job nine months in the year, and cannot make a living because these press- ing contractors will not pick up a man who is a practical presser. He has no use for him, because a practical presser may demand $16.00 or $18.00 or $20.00 a week. He does not care. He takes him from Ellis Island. The minute he comes from Ellis Island, the head presser goes out to Union Square, or somewhere else, and gets a green man and pays him $3.00 a week, in the beginning, to show him how to press, while the man who actually worked all his life lays around the streets for a month and has no means to live. The reason the manufacturers will fight it is because they will have to employ competent pressers who are in this country, and who are accustomed to living as an American citizen is used to live, and they will not work for $3.00 and consequently the jacket will cost the manufac- turer 15 cents more to have it pressed; but they are taking advantage of those in authority — poor devils, working for $3.00 or $4.00 a week, and the manufacturers will meet us right here. On one side they are accumulating wealth by sweat out of those poor devils. MR. COHEN: We are in a conference, Mr. Rosenberg. MR. ROSENBERG: I beg to be excused. It has been proven that pressing contracts — pressing contractors get over $100 or $150 a week, while the rest of them working for those pressers are going home with $6.00 or $8.00 a week. Someone will say, “We are not responsible for the wages.” That is all right. As far as the wages are concerned, of course, any of them are responsible for the wages, according to the City of New York. MR. LONDON : No, they are not. THE CHAIRMAN: No, they are not. MR. ROSENBERG: Anyhow, I am working as a sub-contractor for some presser. I go and ask for a raise in wages. The answer I get is that the price for the garment is so small that I cannot actually afford to raise you a dollar or a half a dollar more. The same presser goes to the superin- tendent and says he Avants more money. “Who are you? I don’t know you.” He comes back to his contractor, and he has no redress then. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Rosenberg, I would like to call your attention to this fact, as to what the exact question — the difficulty is with which I understand we are dealing. I understand that Mr. Cohen, as representing the manufacturers, recognizes the desirability, so far as it is possible, of dealing directly — of the manufacturer dealing directly with the man, without the possibility of the necessity of a sub-contractor and a sub-sub-contractor. I understand that from the manufacturer's standpoint it is in one sense imma- terial to him who gets the money. That is, he does not desire to pav an exorbitant profit to one sub-contractor or a sub-sub-contractor. The question is how mucirhe has to pay on the whole for getting a certain service. Now. 66 for some reasons which have been in part stated, the manufacturers believe there will be difficulty in doing away with what Mr. Schlessinger has called the commission system; that is, the intermediate profit, the special profit of the middleman, but they believe there are difficulties in overcoming that situation. Now, I think what would be most helpful to us, admitting the wrong of the situation, is to make some suggestion as to how you can over- come the difficulty. MR. ROSENBERG: It is an easy matter. First of all, Mr. Polomon has said that in his factory, where he manufactures shirts, the sub-contracting system is absolutely impossible to abolish. I would like to ask this question of Mr. Polomon. Why is it that a rhajority of the suit houses are making their suits, not on the sub-contracting system? That is first of all. Sec- ondly — THE CHAIRMAN: Let us have him answer that first. MR. POLOMON: The skirts we manufacture are entirely different than a suit skirt. I make suits also. We never take a skirt from our separate skirt department and put it on a suit. You cannot use it. THE CHAIRMAN: What is the reason? What is the distinction? MR. POLOMON: Well, the style and everything. A suit skirt is made to match a coat, and a separate skirt is made so that you could wear a sepa- rate waist, to match any kind of waist. It is entirely different. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Now, in both classes of garments, do you apply the sub-contracting system? MR. POLOMON: In both? Yes, we do. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, now, Mr. Rosenberg’s statement was that in one of them many of the manufacturers did not do that. MR. POLOMON: Well, we had some difficulty in that line. We take very often the suit skirts and we send them outside to be made; have con- tractors outside; but, coming to the point, our voile skirts particularly are trimmed with satin or taffeta trimming. Now, the tailor he knows how to mark the trimming and trim the skirt. The girl only bastes; all she knows is to go by the notches and do the pleating and basting, and the tailor puts the garment together. Then there is another girl that does nothing but sew on hooks and eyes, trim the bottom and baste. THE CHAIRMAN : What I would like to have for my information is why it is necessary that these different individuals who co-operate to make that skirt should be the employees of a sub-contractor — three or four of them employees of a sub-contractor, instead of all four of them directly employees of yours? MR. POLOMON : We employ intelligent labor to make the skirt. Now, he gets assistants. If he was to make that skirt himself solely, why, the skirt would cost probably three times as much. MR. LONDON : That is just the point. THE CHAIRMAN : Why couldn’t each one of those three or four per- sons be directly emploved by you? MR. POLOMON: We have tried that. It is very difficult. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the question I would like to know about. MR. POLOMON : We have tried it a dozen times. It is very difficult. We have tried to rush stuff through. If we give it to the baster she might not be here to-day, or the tailor might be sick that day. THE CHAIRMAN: That would be equally true if there were sub- workers. 67 MR. POLOMON; Well, but he gets somebody else if they do not show up. THE CHAIRMAN: Couldn’t you get somebody else as well as that sub- contractor gets somebody else? MR. POLOMON: Yes, it could be done. MR. ROSENBERG: I do not dispute the right of subdividing the skirt or jacket or any other style. We do not dispute it. The question is if there is a subdivision to be done, then each man works on a certain part, he should get paid directly by the manufacturer. THE CHAIRMAN: I understand. MR ROSENBERG: 'Now, I am willing to prove that some skirt manufac- turers on the same line as Mr. Polomon do not employ the sub-contracting system. They also make separate skirts with velvet and all kinds of stuff. They have basters who are doing nothing but basting, and finishers to sew hooks and eyes, and so on; still the operator, whatever he makes, he gets paid for his part so much and so much, and there is no such thing as a con- tracting system. Let us go still further. We may say that in the skirt busi- ness this is absolutely impossible to abolish. Let us take it for granted, as Mr. Polomon stated, that it is impossible to abolish the system of sub-con- tracting, but on jackets it is possible to get along without sub-contracting. I guess it is, because there are no such things as trimmings on jackets. Why is it that there are gentlemen who are here on this floor who have a system whereby they employ about lo men in their entire shop — ten men are getting paid by the boss, and those ten men are killing 500 other men, paying them $3.00, $6.00, $8 00. and so on. A VOICE: That saves bookkeeping. MR. ROSENBERG: That may be the case. THE CHAIRMAN : I think Mr. Silverman wanted to answer this question in regard to this same matter. MR. SILVERMAN : I will try to answer. I think in a majority of cases it is not done the same. I have just a small part of that done myself. That is rather a bonus to the foreman. Instead of hiring a foreman to do that work we pay him so much money for it and he divides it into different sections and over- looks the whole job. Instead of going into the system of making up the differ- ent payrolls we pay the foreman so much, and he pays his people. This is the same as if I had a certain class of work — that I can hire people to carry this table. I do not need to do that myself. It is sub-divided into different sections. It is merely done to save having toe many foremen to deal with. THE CHAIRMAN : I have found in other trades so much abuse under this sub-contracting system that I wanted very much to know the specific difficulties that you had met, because I have found in other trades where they supposed they had difficulties, that they overcame them, and that we come back to the very old difficulties of farming out taxes, and the rest of them MR. COHEN : I just want to suggest this. Even assuming that the argument as it has been presented thus far — that it is an economic condition that can be remedied, my point is that it cannot be remedied in a hurry by any legislation that we agree upon here ; that, in other words, it will revolutionize the working opera- tions of our industrv. It does not exist throughout the industry, but I do not understand that the gentlemen here on behalf of the employees are here for the purpose of ruining any particular manufacturer, and those special manufacturers who have been conducting the business on those lines cannot be expected with one swoop to change their entire methods. Now, it may be that this can be done away with, It might benefit a few employees in those establishments, but we 68 ought not to adopt a drastic remedy that will practically destroy by the sudden change a considerable number of manufacturers. Now, that is my point. I am informed by some of the manufacturers who are approaching this question in a spirit of improvement, that this system cannot be changed over night. THE CHAIRMAN : Are you prepared from your discussion of the subject, to suggest for the consideration of the representatives of the Unions some pro- vision which would result — you say it cannot be abolished altogether. MR. ROSENBERG: I am able to prove that we can abolish it right now in five minutes. There is no danger of revolutionizing the trade at all ; none what- ever. MR. LENNON : Mr. Rosenberg has not completed his statement. MR. ROSENBERG: We have — in a few dozen houses, wEether small or large, we went to work last fall or last spring, and we decided to abolish the sub- contracting system in pressing also, in so far as operating is concerned, and we have done it without any injury to the manufacturers. The manufacturers are on good terms with us, and even that the large manufacturers, but the small ones also. THE CHAIRMAN : I think it would be useful if you would tell us about that. MR. ROSENBERG : We have decided that a presser should work directly for his firm, and we simply fixed up a scale for the presser to get so much and so much, and if his foreman has an organizing ability, let him use it for the in- terest of the firm, but let each man work for the firm. Why is it possible in the overall line? Overalls are much cheaper than skirts. Why is it possible to have that division of labor, and each man and girl work directly for the manufacturer. MR. POLOMON : Can I answer that? MR. ROSENBERG: I will be through in about a second, and then you would have your say. I say this, it seems to me that this entire conference is merely expressing a good will, but we are not here for expressing good wills. We are here to get. Can we get it or not? If we are able to get it, then it is all right. If it is simply expressing good will THE CHAIRMAN : This is not speaking to the point. MR. ROSENBERG: It can be eliminated over night. If the manufacturers will pledge themselves to abolish sub-contracting with pressers — we are not dis- cussing the question of the division of labor, we are discussing that each man should work directly for the firm. That is all we are after. THE CHAIRMAN: What can you point out as to the way? MR. ROSENBERG: Instead of having a contractor, let the contractor be also an operator. Each operator should work also for the firm directly. It is absolutely the easiest proposition I could have. I want to impress upon you gentlemen that we are here in this strike to eliminate competition to some extent — unfair competition. If there are manufacturers who are competing with other manufacturers who have not established the system as they have, we want to eliminate them, no matter whether they are members of the Association or not. The moment we should agree to remain on the olcL system of contracting, some of you gentlemen will have to suffer just as we will, although you belong to an association. I know there was some gentlemen here who do not know of that system. They have to pay for that skirt $3.00, while the next member gets it for 50 cents. MR. COHEN : I do not think we are making any progress by this harangue. MR. POLOMAN : Mr. Chairman, I would be only too pleased if my busi- ness could be conducted in the same way that the overall business is, so that we 69 should be able to employ each individual separately. From what I understand, the overall business is one style, and that style will last — A VOICE; No, that is not so. MR. POLOMAN ; They may have a hundred styles, but they are going to run them right along from the beginning of the season. Our styles, as everyone knows, change over night, and we might make a certain style up, and as soon as we get that broken in, you don’t get any duplicates. We have to make new styles ■ — new numbers. THE CHAIRMAN : I do not understand the difficulty myself of doing away with the sub-contracting system, and that is the reason I have been rather per- sistent in asking these questions, because I do not see anything in the nature of things why, if one of your men, John Smith, can select a trimmer and buttonhole sewer and ribbon sewer and presser, and half a dozen other things — why your foreman or superintendent or factory cannot do the same thing just as well. I do not see any reason why you should not have — I can see how the system grew up; historically it is perfectly clear, but I cannot see why it is a necessary inci- dent to manufacture in your business than in any others. MR. POLOMAN : I do not know that it is. MR. LEFCOURT : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it seems to me the ques- tion of sub-contracting, as far as the garment is concerned, I have not had very much experience with it outside of the fact that I know that it exists, and the rea- sons if some of the gentlemen would take the time to learn, as much the reasons for that coming from the retailer, the man that really buys the garment, the con- ditions are brought about much the same as a man putting up a building ; a build- ing and a garment is practically on the same lines ; the same as building a house. The contracts for different parts are given out to a sub-contractor in order to get that building finished in a less time than it would take if individual men were employed and put on that building. I dispute with every gentleman on the other side that the manufacturer is trying to save any money, because I do not doubt that it costs him for the same thing — it costs him fully the same by putting it out on conract as it would if he were puting these men on individually, but it simply means this, that instead of building one building, he builds two, thereby givong his men more employment, and that is the system that has been in vogue a good many years. * THE CHAIRMAN : If I may interrupt you, is it a fact that in your associa- tion, some of your members have sub-contractors in their employ, and some do their business without them? MR. LEFCOURT : Well, I find that a majority of them do no sub-contracting, except the pressing end of it, and the pressing end of it, having had experience in both ways — in fact, that is about the only line I have had experience in. THE CHAIRMAN : Assuming that a garment has been manufactured from the beginning; I mean by a system of all men being in your employ, and it comes to what I assume to be the last act, that of pressing, why cannot you employ a presser to press those goods, just as you can a man to sew the seams or the but- tons, or anything else? I do^’t understand it? MR. LEFCOURT : Peculiar conditions exist, to be very frank with you. A man who works with pressers constantly ; that is, the contractor, as you call him, will positively, for reasons unknown — they will positively work more faithfully than they would for an employer direct. I have had it in both cases where I could prove it. THE CHAIRMAN : Is a presser paid by the piece or by the week? MR. LEFCOURT : The individual presser is paid by the week. 70 THE CHAIRMAN : Now, why wouldn’t that individual presser be paid just as well by the week as if he were working on a sub-contract? MR. LEFCOURT : That is a question which is unfathomable. THE CHAIRMAN : Are there any shops where all the pressers work di- rectly for the superintendent? MR. LEFCOURT ; I don’t know of any. There may be half a dozen where they do. There must be some price placed onto the garment as to what it costs for pressing. THE CHAIRMAN : That is true of each item in the garment. You must know practically when you make up your cost, exactly what it is going to co"i you for pressing and for buttonholing and so much for this and for that, and the sum total is the cost of the v/hole thing. MR. LEFCOURT: Absolutely. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, what I want to know is whether this sub-contract- ing is a mere habit that the business has gotten into, or whether it is something inevitable to the successful conduct of the business. MR. LEFCOURT : It is a habit. In building your garment you want to know what the pressing will cost you. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; I suppose that would be true of every other part of the garment. MR. LEFCOURT : The price of the operating is established. MR. ROSENBERG: Why isn’t it in the cutting? MR. LEFCOURT : You have a different element to deal with. The class of men that work for the sub-contractor will not work for the employer as faith- fully. * THE CHAIRMAN : Isn’t it possible by co-operation with the union to secure for those pressers the same sort of satisfactory men you get for trimmers or cutters ? MR. LEFCOURT : I hope to see it some day, but I think it is something you could not radically change. THE CHAIRMAN : Then what you say is that the difficulty is not inherent in the work, but it is attributable to some habits, whatever they may be, which that mass of workmen has got into? MR. LEFCOURT: Absolutely. THE CHAIRMAN : If that is true, then it seems to me to be up to those who are familiar with this work to explain how it is. MR. SODOWSKY : My pressers are all working directly for me. MR. SCHLESSINGER : How many do you employ? MR. SODOWSKY : About 150, and I think that all the gentlemen will agree that it will be to their advantage to employ the pressers direct. MR. SCHLESSINGER: I am a skirt maker, and have worked a great many years in the shops in New York. I want to say there are several reasons why the system of contracting — in some cases it is business. In some cases there are people in close touch with the firm, and by influence they get in close touch with this branch of the work. In some cases it is shirking responsibility. He is busy with something else and turns it over to this man. But what I want to say is this : I know several big houses who are manufacturing skirts, and who have no sub- contractor, and never have had, and they are growing concerns to-day and they are extending their trade. They have never had any difficulty. The greatest evil is in the pressing trade. In most instances there are three or four men partners ; sometimes five men come to a firm and give them sometimes $500. In the press- ing system this prevails. At the beginning of the season, when it is very slow, two or three pressers will come to the factory or the superintendent and give him 71 ?400 or $500 security to get the work. They will work themselves when it is slow. When it is busy they will work overtime, and when it is absolutely a physi- cal impossibility for them to accomplish all of the work they take on some new men, and it is only at the height of the season that they employ a complete set of men. As soon as it gets slow they begin to discharge those men until they remain there doing the work during the slack time. The average presser finds very little work to do. He can get in only three or four months’ work in a year, because there are four or five men who have the security and can get the work. Of course, there is a difficulty. There are certain difficulties to overcome, but this sub-con- tracting is done because it is so much cheaper and easier, and more convenient to work seven days. MR._BLOCH; I want to say this, that I do not try to impose any hardships on the employers by abolishing this inside contract system. We know that fair employers pay as much to sub-contractors as they pay each one individually, but ii leaves that loop-hole open for the unfair manufacturer, because he is satisfied if he earns $75 a week and pays them six or seven dollars. It is the under man who works for these i^eople that is the victim of the system. The employer is not the beneficiar}^. We have discussed this question with some of the employers, for instance, in the cutting trade. At one time they had cpiite a lot of this piece- work, but they finally abolished it. Now, the employer was paying more for his work than if he employed the cutters directly. Naturally, it brought around a system of direct employment of the cutter. THE CHAIRMAN : With your permission, I would like to ask Mr. Sodowsky another question. You said you had no sub-contracting of the press men? MR. SODOWSKY : No. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any sub-contracting in your factory? MR. SODOWSKY : In some departments. In the finishing and operating. There are only one or two, or three or four people working together. THE CHAIRMAN : You have, for some reason or other, which we need not go into now, have not had any sub-contracting of press men ? MR. SODOWSKY: We have had it occasionally. THE CHAIRMAN: You haven’t any now? MR. SODOWSKY: No. THE CHAIRMAN : How long is it since vou have abolished sub-contracting of press men? MR. SODOWSKY : About a year ago. THE CHAIRMAN : Is the class of work which you do in your factory — does it differ materially from that of other factories? MR. SODOWSKY : Oh, yes; they make higher class work. THE CHAIRMAN : You have a low class? MR. SODOWSKY : Popular price. We find we get better work out of the people by employing them directly. MR. COHEN : Does that apply to finishing as well as pressing? MR. SODOWSKY: No. MR. COHEN : Are you in favor of adopting it with regard to finishing, as well ? MR. SODOWSKY : If it could be done. MR. BLOCH : I do not believe that we want to revolutionize the whole trade in a minute. MR. SILVERMAN : I think in a little time the thing could be changed. THE CHAIRMAN : If I may suggest, the time for the adjournment has ar- rived, and if you gentlemen before our meeting to-morrow, so far as you are able to go over all of these matters that we have discussed, if you could go over them 72 and then come in and give yoiir views on them as to what it is possible to do to carry them out. AIR. COHEN : I suggest this : I hope the stenographer will be able to get out the minutes by to-morrow morning, even If he has to work overtime, and send another man here to-morrow. Aly plan was to go over the minutes in the caucus to-morrow morning, and to come back with answers to these matters, and I intend to prepare the answers to-morrow morning. May I say this for the benefit of some of the gentlemen here, who, without perhaps intending it, have made remarks tending to reflect upon the sincerity of our members, because we have tried to get light, and have expressed hope here. I have gone as far to-day in committing my side as I think it is fair to ask at a first conference, and I do not propose to commit my side to any proposition that I am not confident will be honestly carried out by my people, and I do not think it is reasonable to ask that we shall commit our- selves on every matter that comes up here. I have given my pledge in good faith that we will do everything on our side to see if we can find an amicable adjustment of these grievances. We have not come here in any spirit of fight or squabble. On our side I think we have refrained from anything that might lead to bad feel- ing, and I should like the gentlemen on the other side to reflect over night and to come to to-morrow’s conference in a spirit of trust, rather than a spirit of criti- cism. THE CHAIRAIAN : I think the gentlemen fully appreciate the desire of all here to bring about a satisfactory result of this conference. While in the heat of argument perhaps some expressions have been used that are not perhaps ex- actly parliamentary, I think every one feels that the evils, all of them, are not evils for which the employees alone or the employer alone is responsible, and that the only way to overcome them is by sincere co-operation to that end. MR. SCHLESSINGER : It is true that the time for adjournment has arrived, but you heard, one of our propositions is that we are permitted to work two and a half hours overtime. Now, I would be very much in favor of working overtime to-night and getting through with the rest of the proposition. MR. COklEN : We are not here to tire each other out. We are trying to get honest conclusions, not hasty conclusions. MR. SCHLESSINGER: I say that the proposition to-night would take only a few minutes. THE CHAIRMAN : That has been already determined on. MR. COHEN ; May I suggest that we meet at eleven o’clock to-morrow morn- ing, so as to give me time to talk with my people. THE CHAIRMAN : Very well. Whereupon the meeting then adjourned until Friday, July 29, 1910, at ii a. m. 73 MINUTES OF SESSION OF JULY 29, 1910. Room 5208, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Building^, New York City, July 29, 1910. Met pursuant to adjournment at ii o’clock a. m. Presekt : riie chairman, both committees and counsel as before. MORNING SESSION. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, unless there is some objection, we will call the meeting to order. MR. COHEN ; May I ask, Mr. London, if you have prepared your suggestion? MR. LONDON : On the subject of deposits? MR. COHEN : Yes. MR. LENNON : I desire to say that on the subject of deposit, that we will withdraw it for the present. MR. COHEN: You will withdraw it? MR. LENNON : Eor the present. MR. COHEN : I desire to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that I have been in caucus with my people all the morning. I only got the minutes shortly before eleven o’clock, and I want to say in the most serious way that I can report progress to you, sir. THE CHAIRMAN : That is good. MR. COHEN : That on every proposition that has been thus far submitted I think we shall be able to meet our friends more than half way, and in view of the fact that there are only two more subjects — the wages THE CHAIRMAN : Three. MR. COHEN : And wages and sanitary conditions — before we take up the matter of methods, and in view of the fact that our decision with reference to some of the things is interlinked with suggestions that may come under the question of low wages, I think that we might proceed to the discussion of those, and if we can flo them before recess, I think by this afternoon I can have for the consideration of the conference our response to the suggestions that have been made across the t.able. There are one or two things that I want to look over the minutes for, but I can say with the greatest assurance that we are making progress ver}' rapidly. THE CHAIRMAN : Your suggestion is that we take up now the question of wages ? MR. COHEN : First, the wages, and then the sanitary conditions. Mr. Len- non, is that method of proceeding agreeable to you ? MR. LENNON : It is acceptable, except I would prefer to get a definite answer this morning about the important questions discussed yesterday. THE CHAIRMAN : I understand that all the answers to all of those, as far as the matters themselves, will all be discussed thoroughly, with a view to reach- ing a conclusion before we take up the question of methods. MR. COHEN : May I say this, and I want Mr. London to accept my assurance in good faith, that I want to make suggestions or responses to the suggestions made by the other side that I know will be acceptable to our members. Of course, we must go back to our association and get their approval, just as the other side must go back to their members to get their approval, for what they recommend, and I want my people to recommend things that their association will, we believe, approve of. Now, in that connection I may say that I have secured a tentative 74 decision on practically nearly every matter, but before it is presented here I want to be sure that it is thoroughly understood and put in such form that we can stand by it. May I say, also, in that connection, that we do not understand that anything that has been presented here thus far as a remedy is presented in the nature of an ultimatum — a final decision? MR. LENNON : That is understood. MR. COHEN ; And we do not understand that when we come back with our presentment it will be in the nature of an ultimatum. We simply endeavor to formulate for our side something to save time. MR. LENNON ; That is satisfactory. On the subject of wages, we realize in a trade where the piecework system prevails, and where, speaking roughly — where approximately there are three-quarters of the employees engaged in the trade as pieceworkers, it is almost impossible to fix any definite or exact standard of wages. For the week workers we have prepared a scale of wages, and this scale of wages is insisted on in all the cases where employers have signed the union agreement as submitted to the trade. Now, I will submit to you this MR. COHEN : I have a copy. That is paragraph 2 of the contract? MR. LENNON: Yes. MR. COHEN : That means the minimum wage which you think should be paid to all week workers in this classification? MR. LONDON : Yes. I will read it for the stenographer. MR. COHEN : Yes. MR. LONDON : The following is the minimum scale of wages for week hands : Cutters, not less than $26.00 per week ; skirt cutters, not less than $22.00 per week; jacket pressers, $22.00; under pressers, $18.00; skirt pressers, $22.00; skirt under pressers, $16.00. Then I have the words “piece presser.” When I inserted that word I was told about the existence of the piece presser. I did no? know how to spell it, and I spelled it “p-i-e-c-e” — piece presser, $14.00. MR MEYER : What does that mean ? MR. LONDON : Those that are pressing small pieces. Reefer pressers, $18.00; reefer under pressers, $14.00; sample makers, $24.00; skirt makers, $24.00. A VOICE: Skirt sample makers. MR. LONDON : Skirt sample makers ; skirt makers working by the week. Skirt basters, $15.00; skirt finishers, $12.00, and buttonhole makers not less than $1.10 per 100 buttonholes. That is so far as the week workers are concerned. MR. COHEN : May we take that up separately? MR. LONDON : No, I think that we should take it together, because we are not going to discuss it now. I suppose you will take these demands in your taucus and discuss it there. I want to make a statement in reference to the piece- workers. MR. COHEN : All right. MR. LONDON : Now, we have tried to make some standard for the piece- workers, the principal object being to promote uniformity. We realize that if in one place the employee will get for a garment $5.00, while in the next place he will get for a garment which involves the same amount of work, $2.50, that the condition of the trade will remain just about as it is now. Such really was our experience in the past, and in many cases where the Union would get hold of an employer and would compel the employer to pay higher wages, still all around him lower wages were paid, so that the Union employer was at a disadvantage. We adopted this suggestion to the trade, the suggestion which we present to you now. MR. COHEN : Paragraph 20? 75 MR. LONDON : Paragraph 20, that the prices for piecework under the con- tract are based on the proposition that the average pieceworker — the average skilful pieceworker shall be able to make 75 cents per hour. MR. COHEN: You eliminate the last sentence, do you? MR. LONDON : Well, when we — yes, that is a method of regulation. MR. COHEN : A method of regulation, I see. Now, may I ask, not for the purpose of agreeing upon methods, but merely to emphasize the importance of this problem, Mr. Referee — of course every decent manufacturer realizes the importance of having his standard of wage throughout the industry, and the bet- ter class of manufacturer is always anxious to have the poorer class of manufac- facturer conform to that standard of wage, and it makes small difference whether it is 50 cents or $1.00 more, provided it is carried out throughout the industry. Now, one of the things that we welcome, in this situation, is the possibility of esiablishing standard rates of compensation throughout the industry. We want, if we are going to agree to pay your people a certain standard — we want to be sure that our competitor, Mr. Dyche, will not be able to get the work done for ’css than that ; that is the difficulty. So long as this has been left, not as a mat- ter of regulation, but as a matter of competition, there is nothing to prevent the worker from working for whatever he can get, and there is nothing to prevent the employer from cutting him down to the lowest terms, and we are driven of necessity to compete with the others who are paying the lowest wages, so that the result of it is the constant lowering of the wage instead of increasing it. We recognize that just as you must have recognized it before, and I want to say that in this connection of the wage standard we seek in the organization of your Union one of the strongest means by which to prevent the inexorable law of competition, reducing the standard of living in your industry and we welcome your Union for that, if not for a great many other things. All we want though is some reasonable expectation that the Union is going to live up to its part and to this promise to us. I do not mean to take up at all the question of bad faith on your part. I am going to assume that both parties intend to preserve the highest kind of good faith in carrying out all agreements here, but the important practical question, you see, is how are you, with the very best intentions in the world, going to make these stand- ards prevail throughout the industry, because we are afraid that the tendency will be to non-unionize the workers in the industry. Your Union men will be bound by this agreement not to work for less than the amount which we agree upon in this conference, but if there is no work to be had, except among the poorer manufacturers who are bidding down the employees, won’t the inducement be for the Union man to become a non-Union man, and to go to work in these shops at less than the standard wage, and compete with us? What I want to have at this point is not that we consider the method of working it out, but what I want to make of it to ask of the men on the other side of the table is whether they have con- sidered that problem, and whether they have anything in mind with reference to it, because it will facilitate us greatly if we can come in afterward — we may not accept these specific terms, bat whatever terms we agree upon, it will facilitate us if we can feel reasonably certain that those are going to be the standard prices for week workers throughout the industry, and what we want to know is whether you fellows on the other side of the fence have thought about it, and if so, your ideas about it. MR. LENNON : I want to say, gentlemen, that this raises one of the greatest principles that has to do with organized labor, and we find this, that while in gen- eral, the tendency of wages is towards the lower pay, that where there is estab- lished an organization that fixes a minimum wage, that we absolutely overcome 76 the general principle which applies generally in the industry, and that the ten- dency is toward the Union wage. MR. COHEN : May I interrupt you a moment? MR. LENNON ; Yes. MR. COHEN : But does that apply in industries where the constant supply is so rapidly increasing as in yours ; where each steamer brings over so many more operators among the Italians and the Russians? MR. LENNON : Yes, we think it will. MR. COHEN: Have you studied that, Mr. Lennon? MR. LENNON : Perhaps not as much as some of the other men here may have studied it. MR. COHEN : I would like to hear from Mr. Dyche on that after you get through, if you don’t mind. jN.IR. LENNON : Yes, I am a short talker. The cigarmakers are facing a condition that is worse than even the cloakmakers. THE CHAIRMAN : Very much. MR. LENNON : And in spite of that fact that they are contending against the greatest combination and trust that to-day exists in the world, not excepting the Steel Trust, because that — I cannot explain it here, but it is greater so far as that industry is concerned than the Steel Trust is in the steel trade, and not only are they against that proposition where tenement house work still applies and where child and woman labor still applies, but they are against the proposition of the free importation of cigars from the Philippine Islands, and yet there is abso- lutely no desertion from the ranks of the Cigar Makers’ Union, and the Trust em- ployees are gradually coming up to the Wage standard of the Cigarmakers’ Inter- national Union, continuously, showing that the effect upon MR. COHEN : Water reaches its highest level. MR. LENNON : Yes, it does in this case — showing that where a standard of wages is fixed, and men naturally and of necessity live next door to each other, and the non-Union man or the Union man sees that his neighbor is getting the standard of wages, he does not seek to reduce the wages ; he seeks to raise his own to the same level, and if the standard of wages can be agreed upon, which I be- lieve it can, I wdl tell you that instead of the cut-throat policy which has been pursued, the Union, especially with the assistance of a considerable number of the manufacturers, will not only be able to hold that standard of wages in New York, but it will be able to hold it in some other cities. I know something about the general industry, and I know something about your industry. I do not mean that in detail. I know, for instance, that Cleveland is coming fast in the cloak making business — faster than any other city in the United States outside of New York. Some of your men may not believe it, but I know what I am talking about in that respect. There are a number of other cities, none of them growing quite as fast as Cleveland in the industry, but Chicago and St. Louis and Cincinnati, to a small degree as yet, and Philadelphia and Baltimore and Boston and some other cities. Now, if a standard of wages can be fixed in New York, then it is not only pos- sible, but it is almost as certain as anything can be in industrial life, that this same organization can go to these other cities and put them on the same standard, and not drag down the business in New York, and not take the business away from New York, but with the advantages of New York as a market, and with the ad- vantages of New York as a market, and with the advantages of it not only as a market for buying, but as a market for selling, eliminate what is the greatest danger to the cloak and suit manufacturers of New York city, and that is that the trade will be diverted to other cities. I know by talking to business men that they do not believe there is any such danger, as a rule, but I have known indus- 77 tries to be absolutely diverted from some cities to others entirely — almost wiped out of existence, and gone to other cities, and there is nothing in this whole con- troversy more essential to you men on that side of the table than that there should be an effective organization with a standard of wages in the City of New York, but there should be the same standard in the other cities of the country where cloaks and skirts are manufactured. MR. COHEN ; Now, on that point, while you are right on it, may I ask — of course, I do not want to burden you. I simply want an expression MR. LENNON: No. MR. COHEN : May I ask you whether you are prepared to give us reason- able assurance that if we adopt this nominal standard here, your organization, which is National, will do its best to see that that standard prevails, making, of course, due allowance for local conditions ? MR. LENNON : I am not in the industry, but if the cloak trade wants my services in the other cities, I will give up everything else to spend the next year or two in that work. MR. COHEN : That helps some. MR. LENNON : Everything else. I am giving up work now that is worth dollars where this is worth pennies. MR. COHEN : This is the most important strike on now. MR. LENNON: I mean so far as my pocketbook is concerned, sir. MR. COHEN: I understand. MR. LENNON: And I know that I can pledge the organization, that they will immediately start with efforts to organize all the other cities of the country and put them on the same standard; not a lower standard, but that same standard that may be used in the City of New York. MR. COHEN : I want to hear from Mr. Dyche. MR. DYCHE: It is true, as counsel for the other side stated, that we are confronted with a situation of emigration from people to our country of a lower standard, who come to this country and are willing to take lower wages, and the manulacturers are willing to take advantage of this. But you must not forget the fact — I am speaking for the Jewish makers — we know that whatever the faults of our race may be, they are all energetic and all eager for a high standard of living, and to get out of their wages as much as possible. There are a number of people who are satisfied with what they get, but our people are not that way. The immigrant who comes in with a penny in his pocket, that will accept $5.00 a week, is as anxious to get $25.00 a week as I am, but there is not the possibility. The object of the Union is to give our people a chance to realize their expectations; that is, to get more for their labor. That is what they are all trying for. Of course, the difficulty why we have not succeeded up to now has been largely and mostly the opposition on the part of the manufacturers. They have opposed the Union. Not because of any principle; I mean to say, because they do not like the Union itself, but because the Union gives a chance to the people to realize the expectation for higher wages. Now, if we will have no oppo- sition on the part of the bulk of the manufacturers in the City of New York against this in.strument, which enables us to arrive at a standard of wages, it will be a comparatively easy matter for us to raise wages through- out the city, and not only throughout the city, but throughout the country. I may tell you this in all confidence, that it requires but a telegram from me to stop most of the cities in a moment’s notice, who are awaiting the result of this strike. I can assure you that as soon as this strike is over, and as soon as any standard is established to our satisfaction, we will at once see 78 that other cities will do the very same thing. Our union is best concerned with the question of the cloak industry. We have been in it four years, and have devoted four years of our attention to solving this problem, this prob- lem of establishing a Union standard of wages, and the energy of our Union has been directed for years to no other purpose except of establishing this standard, and I think to-day, by reason of this general strike, we are in a position to establish it, and if the manufacturers will in any way co-operate with us to have a strong Union, the stronger the Union the easier it will be for us to establish this standard. We do understand just as well as you that we cannot make one class of manufacturers abide by the high wages, while the other one will pay low wages. We know that as well as you do, and it is to our interest, and we have no other interest in this world, and the very reason for our existence is to establish a uniform standard of wages as far as we can. MR. COHEN : I think you have made your point. MR. DYCHE: We have no other object, in fact. MR. COHEN: Now, gentlemen, that is one of the most helpful things — that and what Mr. Lennon has said — toward establishing cordial relations between our Association and yours, because we have come to the conviction on our side that the organization on our side is necessary for meeting just such situations as this, and we feel that we cannot solve these problems with- out your co-operation and without your support, and we do not want to have any business dealings with you unless you are a strong organization, capable of effectively carrying out whatever you agree to. Now, you must realize, Mr. Lennon, that if we were to agree here upon high wages, that are high in the industry throughout the country, that nothing would con- tribute so much to Cleveland’s taking the supremacy in the cloak trade from New York as for us to establish those rates of wages, while the rates of wages in Cleveland remain the same. If we were to establish — I am informed by one of the men on our side of the table — the rates per hour for piece- work that has been suggested here, while that rate should not prevail throughout the entire country, our business would be diverted to those other cities within a short while, and it seems to me, gentlemen, that it is only fair to ask of you that in the event that we agree to a certain stand, you pledge yourseUes to enforce those standards throughout the country as well as throughout the city. We realize that the same amount of money may not be the same standard, because in other cities the cost of living may be less, and we cannot reasonably insist that wages be the same in dollars and cents in Cleveland or other cities as they are here, but I think we have the right to insist that if we are to raise the wages here, upon a substantial pledge on your part of taking into account local conditions, you will see to it that the wages throughout the country for your people — of course, you cannot bind the non-Union men — for your people shall be maintained at that standard, just as v'e propose to insist that the members of our Associa- tion shall observe that standard here. Gentlemen, we have to run our busi- ness; we have capital invested; we are glad to pay our people well. There are some very humane people in the cloak business, although it may be hard in times of excitement to believe that; but, after all, you are concerned by the limitations of your side, and we are concerned by the limitations of ours, and unless we meet the law of competition by the law of co-operation, the competition will survive, and we will be hurt just as you will be hurt. I think it is one of the most encouraging things of this conference, Mr. Chairman, 79 that we have had this assurance from Mr. Lennon and Mr. Dyche, so far. I am quite prepared now to take up the next subject of discussion. MR. SCHLESSINGER: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schlessinger. MR. SCHLESSINGER: The same question that was asked by Counselor Cohen was asked to me several years ago by the various manufacturers in Chicago, by the various manufacturers in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and, in fact, all over the country, vherever I have had a chance to get together with the employers. They all said the same thing. You will probably succeed in getting higher wages from us — that was the way they all said — but are you sure you will try to get the same thing from our competitors, and if you would not get the same thing from our competitors, the result would be we will go out of business. They practically brought up the same question that you brought up now, and I want to say that they were perfectly justified. I say the Chicago manufacturers and Cleveland manufacturers and manufac- turers in any of the other cities in the country were perfectly justified in asking this question. Of course, you gentlemen are not entitled to the right to ask this question, because you are the competitors. You are competing against every manufacturer in the country. There are gentlemen here that actually have brought down tlie trade to such a state that it is absolutely impossible for them to make much profit — absolutely impossible for our men to make a living. There are gentlemen in this room here — I do not mention any names MR. COHEN: Do not say men in this room; say men in the industry. MR. SCHLESSINGER: There are men in the industry that turn out garments so cheap that the manufacturers in Chicago cannot get the material for that price. I know that to be a fact, and I can prove it to you if necessary. I am willing to prove to you that really 30 per cent, of the cloak makers in Cleveland and in Cincinnati and about 15 per cent, of the cloak makers in Chicago, Chicago being the larger city — that is why the percentage of those that have a chance to exist is smaller — there they have their own houses really; they have their own dwellings. I have been in Cleveland and I have studied conditions there. I have lived in Chicago 15 or 16 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I can verify all of this with the manufacturers in Chicago. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Schlessinger, if you have the rate of wages there, I wish you would furnish a schedule of them to us. MR. SCHLESSINGER: Exactly. The cloak experts in Chicago get $26.00 a week, all of th^m ; that is, seven years ago. THE CHAIRMAN: What do they do now? MR. SCHLE.SSINGER: I have not been in Chicago the last seven years. I have been in New York. The contract was signed seven years ago with all of the Chicago cloak manufacturers — all of them, not a single one was left out — a contract where every employer from P. B. Palmer & Company down to the smallest man, from P. B. Palmer & Company, that employs 60 or 65 or 70 cutters, to the smallest man that employs one or two cutters. All the manufacturers in Chicago signed a contract for $20.00 a week for pressers. That was also seven years ago. That means that seven years ago pressers were getting in Chicago $20.00 a week, and when we came together with them discussing that contract they asked the same question that you ask here now, and I feel that they were justified, and as a matter of fact they were justified. A good many of them did not exactly have to go out of business, but came near going out of business because you gentlemen competed 80 against them. But you gentlemen are not justified to ask this question. By your granting these rates of wages it would be possible for people in New York to make such a living as it is possible for people in Chicago; that is, our poeple would be able to live as well and as good as the people in Chicago; so really you are asking us a question that you are not entitled to ask, because you are the competitors. THE CHAIRMAN: I would like, Mr. Schlessinger, if you have the fig- ures, or are able to furnish them before the afternoon, to give us the present rates of wages in Chicago and those other cities, because I do not think the wages seven years ago would be of much assistance to us in fixing what would be possible to-day. MR. SCHLESSINGER: You know that living expenses are higher to-day than they were seven years ago. THE CHAIRMAN : If you will furnish us a schedule with those figures it will be of interest to all of us. MR. SCHLESSINGER: The trade is being diverted to other cities, not because the manufacturers are making goods for lower prices than in New York. The reason that Glevelaiid is becoming a cloak market is because the Cleveland storekeepers are buying goods not from New York but from Cleveland manufacturers. There was a time when the manufacturers used to manufacture thousands and thousands of garments of one single number or several styles, but that time has passed. The manufacturers are only making now nearly as much as they have orders for. A storekeeper of Cleveland will not go nowadays and get his goods made in New York when he can get it made in Cleveland. The reason that the trade has been diverted to Cleveland and other cities is not because you people are higher priced, but simply because there is less trouble for a Cleveland storekeeper to get his goods in Cleveland, and for a Chicago storekeeper to get his goods in Chicago than it is in New York. MR. COHEN: Might I interrupt you a moment? MR. SCHLESSHnGER: Yes, of course. MR. COHEN'; Let us assume, agreeing to your point of view, that it was an impertinent question for us to ask. Do you dissent from the view of Mr. Dyche and Mr. Lennon that it is up to your organization on your side to maintain a standard of wages throughout the country that is uniform ? You can answer that question, can you not? MR. SCHLESSINGER: Yes, I am certainly in favor of having a uniform wage, but I tell you how it would be possible to have a uniform wage MR. LENNON : Come to the remedy. THE CHAIRMAN : That question is not in order now. MR. COHEN : All I wanted to know is whether the gentlemen sub- scribed — MR. SCHLESSINGER: I certainly do. MR. COHEN : Then all of his speechifying is hard on the stenographer and is unnecessary. MR. SCHLESSINGER: All right. THE CHAIRMAN : I believe one of your delegates desires — I do not know which one — did you, Mr. — I wanted to give opportunity to any of your delegates, Mr. Cohen, because Mr. Bloch wishes to speak next. MR. COHEN ; All I need to do for the purpose of expressing our side of the table is to say that our people strongly dissent from Mr. Schlessinger’s view as to the nature of the competition between Cleveland and New York, but that is not of vital consequence to this conference. 81 MR. fjLOCH ; I l)dieve it is possible to make this suggestion for the con- sideration of the other side, and that is this : I want to say this, Mr. Chair- man, that to show our intention on last Tuesday we attended a meeting at Philadelphia; that is, Mr. Rosenberg, Mr. Polakoff and myself, and also a Mr. Levinson, of Cleveland — we attended quite a large meeting there, and the interest manifested by those people at that meeting to bring about equal conditions with those existing in New York was certainly great. Just as Mr. Dyche has said, all that is required is notice for them to quit and go out on the same conditions that we are demanding in New Y^ork, and those conditions will be demanded. This question of Cleveland and other cities where cloaks are made, we believe that if there was any benefit to be ob- tained by the cheaper rent and cheaper living, that that benefit should go to the worker; not that the employers of those cities should say, “You are living cheaper and your expenses are lower than New Y'ork’’; and that is the reason we want to make that profit. We claim that the wages in New York MR. (fOHlfN : Let me understand you. Do you mean to say that if we adopted this standard here, you would be in favor of adopting the same standard throughout the country, regardless of the rental conditions that exist there? MR. BLOCH; That would be my intention, but, of course, in .some in- stances, 1 want to say this : It may be impossible to gain this at one time, but we want to get as close to it as possible. In discussing this question of wages, we consider that very carefully. We did not consider the question of wages for the same reason that we believed we had to earn so and so much money, but we believe that living commodities having increased to such an extent, and wages having decreased in proportion with the increase of the commodities, that a certain established rate must be fixed. We have found that that is the contention on the part of some of the manufacturers. For instance, a man would say in making them to pay the same wages as some of the other houses pay — Bella, Schwartz, and so on — they would say, we are making a cheaper line of garments. We did not figure that. The best judges are the people who have to live on those salaries. We claim that figuring up the salaries of our people, that an average of 75 cents an hour would be about the average wage earned. THE CHAIRMAN : Does the 75 cents an hour mean for every worker, or do you distinguish between dififerent degrees of skill? MR. BLOCH : It means a striking average of the pieceworker. THE CHAIRMAN : Of course, 75 cents an hour, if applied to all workers, would give a very much higher average than the average that you present m your scale for week workers. I mean, 75 cents an hour, based upon the eight-hour day, which you have assumed here, w'ould come to as much for everybody as you have named for the highest minimum wage. That is, it would give more. MR. BLOCH; Well, I know, but we said in our agreement THE CHAIRMAN ; It would give considerably more than you have for anybody. MR. BLOCH; The striking average would be 75 cents an hour. THE CHAIRMAN; What do you mean by “average”? MR. LONDON; Will you please give the floor to me a moment? MR. BLOCH: Certainly. 82 MR. LONDON : 1 miderstaiid the situation, and the other side under- stands the situation. Seventy-five cents an hour looks like an awful big compensation for a tailor. THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing that looks big. I think everybody should get as much as they can. MR. COHEN : That amounts to $6.75 a day? MR. LONDON: Six dollars and seventy-five cents a day, but this 75 cents an hour or the opportunity to make $6 a day, comes to our men only about two or three months during the year. It has been the curse of the trade that whenever w^e w'ould agree upon a certain price list in the begin- ning of the season, say at the end of July, that our men would work on the basis of that price list for two or three months, and at the end of the season, the less work they w'ould do the smaller would be the price, so not only would the piecew'^orker get less w^ork to do, but his price would be reduced at the same time. Now, this 75 cents an hour is the dream of his year, and he gets it only two or three months during the year. That is the system that pre- vails to-day, and having this in mind, we ask for the piecew'orker 75 cents an hour. MR. COHEN : But, Mr. London THE CHAIRMAN : I would like, for my own information here, to put a few questions on this to you or to whoever is best prepared to answer them. MR. LONDON: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : I understand you now to say that during tw'O or three months in the year the workmen, or at least the skilled workmen, should get 75 cents. Do you mean by that to say that he has only two or three months work in a year, or that during other months those two or three, he is obliged to w'ork at a lower rate of compensation? MR. LONDON : Exactly. During the other months, as things prevail now, he works for a much lower compensation. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, is it — during how many months in the year do you assume that those men have some work? I mean, the average man who is a pieceworker has some work, regardless of how much he is paid for the work ? MR. LONDON : I should say in the height of the season or the season itself, it does not amount to more than four months — both the fall and the spring season. MR. COHEN: Four months in the whole year? MR. LONDON: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: You say the height of the season MR, LONDON: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, how many m.onths on the average do the men whom you have in mind now work out of the twelve months? MR. LONDON : Well, I think about four months in the year they do very little work. THE CHAIRMAN : Well, do you mean that they work at least eight months in the year? MR. LONDON : Four mionths they work intensely. THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. MR. LONDON : Then there are four months w'hen things slow' up, and then there is a period where there is almosit no work at all ; next to nothing. MR. COHEN: May I interrupt? 83 MR. LONDON : I do not want to say that it is divided into three equal parts. THE CHAIRMAN ; Mr. Dyche thinks he can answer this. Are you able to answer that, Mr. Dyche? MR. DYCHE: Yes. In figuring the prices we figured what actually takes place in the factories to-day v/hen prices are made. When we begin to higgle and bargain, the man in the factory who is in authority to make prices we agree upon certain prices for certain garments. Assuming this is a dol- lar, the reason we fix it at a dollar is we take into consideration the time it takes of the skilled mechanic. In every shop to-day, and so it wall be in the future, if a garment is priced at a dollar, it will be assumed that this garment will be turned out by the average mechanic, six in a day. It dues not mean that the slowest man who can make two garments would earn $6.00. It means for a man who cannot turn out but two, he can get only $2.00. It also means that an exceedingly fast man who can turn out ten garments, will make $10. It is fixed at $6.00 on the assumption that the average meclianic of every skill and speed can make that specified price. THE CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a few questions to aid in my own mind in understanding this situation. You have taken here a basis for the piecework which in itself is altogether disproportionate to the basis of week work. That is, at eight hours a day, every man who wmrks would, assuming he is occupied, earn $6.00 a day, or $36 a week, whereas on your list there are only a few select persons whom you ask as much as $26 for, and they go all the way down to $12 or $14. MR. DYCHE: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, that seems to be a very unreasonable — assum- ing the one to be correct — the other seems to be absolutely unreasonable, unless your purpose is altogether to do away with piecework and to substitute week work. Now, I would like to hear from Mr. Dyche — I want to put some questions to yon. I would like to hear why you select that 75 cents as a general price per week — per hour for all workmen at all times of the year, and on all kinds of goods? MR. DYCHE: I will explain that. In the first place the pieceworker works much less during the year than the week worker. \Ve believe THE CHAIRMAN : Wait a moment. Now right there, is that a situa- tion that you desire to have continued? MR. DYCHE: It could not be helped at present. We believe THE CHAIRMAN: Why not? MR. COHEN: We think it can be helped. 1 HE CHAIRMAN: Why cannot it be helped? Take it for instance in some other industries — take for instance in the boot and shoe industry, with which, as I said, I am very familiar, there has been a constant tendency year after year to convert week work into piecework, and there is practically now in the most advanced shoe manufacturers’ establishments no work that is not done piecework, and what they undertake to do in the shoe business, in these advanced factories, is to make the two grades of work — I mean, the prices comparable, so that the manufacturer may choose either one or the other. MR. DYCHE: A'Vith the permission of the stenographer, I will explain that. The week worker works steady. If he is stopped for five or ten or fifteen minutes during the day, he gets his wages. The pieceworker, bv reason of his trade, he very seldom works continuously. It very seldom happens that he can come in at 8 o’clock in the morning and work continuously until 84 the end of the day. W e believe that by doing this right through the year the pieceworker will not in the long run make more than the week worker. The nature of the work of the pieceworker is such that he cannot work stead- ily. He is more liable to THE CHAIRMAN: Interruptions? MR. DYCHE: Interruptions.; and loss of wages than the week worker. THE CHAIRMAN: He may be liable to them? MR. DYCHE: He is liable now. THE CHAIRMAN : He is, but it does not follow that that condition exists. That very thing has been met in other industries. It depends upon the conditions of the shop. MR. DYCHE : It also depends upon the nature of his trade. It is unavoidable, to some extent. THE CHAIRMAN ; I do not see, Mr. Dyche, why it is unavoidable that the way a man is paid should affect the quantity that he has in a year. It may be a habit — it may be a very bad habit that now prevails in the business, but I am at a loss to see why it is essential. I should suppose that Mr. Lefcourt, or any one of these manufacturers might perfectly well say, if they have a man now work- ing by the week, beginning on next Monday, you shall be paid by the piece. I do not see why it is not possible. It may be perfectly well that the business has been run differently in the past, but I do not see why it is not possible. MR. POLAKOFF: When we figure the hours for the pieceworkers at 75 cents an hour, it should be understood that he makes only 35 cents an hour, and I will explain why it amounts only to 35 cents an hour. Now, the operator or the tailor, he comes in the morning to work, he hasn’t got any work. He goes to the foreman at half past eight. It means half an hour less than the eight hours Then he goes to the foreman ; the foreman gives him the bundle. Sometimes it happens that he has to run after the foreman for half an hour until he gets the bundle. That means an hour lost on the day ; that means seven hours. Then when he gets the bundle, he goes over to the finisher, or perhaps he is a tailor him- self, he has to take the goods and go over to the presser and wait until the presser will sponge him the goods. When they are making the prices, it is understood that the presser will get paid for the pressing work; at the same time the tailor is also a presser. He is compelled to do his own pressing between the times. THE CHAIRMAN : Well, now, Mr. Polakoff, I understand these points, but here is a point that I would like to have both you .and Mr. Dyche or anyone else answer. It is this: Y'ou have got here on this schedule that Mr. London fur- nished with the contract, he recognizes different degrees of skill are entitled to different compensation. He says the cutters ought to have $26 a week, and cer- tain other persons ought not to have more than $12, as a minimum. Now, while that is laid down, the suggestion is made that if for some reason this man hap- pens to work by the piece, the cutter and the skirt finisher, instead of one getting twice as much as the other, or more than twice as much as the other, they ought to be paid the same. MR. POLAKOFF: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, I am at a loss to see the logic of that situation. MR. POLAKOFF : To become a cutter and to get $26 a week, you have at least to work in the trade six or seven or eight years. A girl who is working on ladies’ waists, or she is working on shirts, she is able to come into the shop and to be a baster on skirts as soon as she can only handle a needle in her hand, and she is able to baste the bottoms or baste the pleats on the skirt, and as soon as she is Avorking from eight o’clock in the morning until five-thirty at night and she is doing her work, she is entitled to get at least two dollars a day. 85 I THE CHAIRMAN: I admist those differences between $26 and $12 1 am assuming that this is correct. MR. DYCHE: If you will let me finish my argument. THE CHAIRMAN: I will. MR. DYCHE: I want to say that in the case of the week worker, it is to the interest of the firm to see that that man or that woman should not lose a minute’s time in the work, but it is not in the interest of the firm to see that a pieceworker shall be constantly employed, and this will remain for all time to come, and this being the case, the piece worker is liable to lose a great deal of time in his work, so that this 75 cents an hour for actual work will, in the long run, mean only 35 cents, because of the inevitable loss of time due to the nature of his work. MR. LONDON : Due to the .system prevailing in piecework. MR. DYCHE: Yes, due to the system prevailing in piecework. What I want to say is that with the best intention on the part of the firm, the piece worker will always be left to look out himself to see that he shall be employed, and not to the foreman, while with the week worker, it is the business of the foreman to do all he can to see that he shall be employed every moment from the time he comes into the factory until the moment he leaves it. THE CHAIRMAN: You have not answered the other question, Mr. Dyche; you have overlooked it. You have not answered this question, and this is as- suming that the differences in compensation are proper for the different classes of skill — why, when you come to piecework, do you have a standard which is the same for all classes of skill? What is your answer to that question? MR. DYCHE: The less skilled man will turn out less work, and if he gets a dollar a garment- THE CHAIRMAN : That does not answer the question, Mr. Dyche. MR. ROSENBERG: Will you allow me to give a better explanation? THE CHAIRMAN : I should be delighted to have you. MR. ROSENBERG: I believe I will be able to explain to the counsellors on both sides, and also to the manufacturers here present. MR. LONDON : The manufacturers understand. MR. ROSENBERG: To some extent they cannot make out exactly what we want. Our trade is so situated that you can never tell the exact value of a gar- ment — never. It always depends upon the men he employs in the shop. For instance, Mr. Bella or Mr. Schwarcz, employs tailors who are very strongly or- ganized amongst themselves, and they also — they stand very high in the union circles, so they can always go to work and can have a garment which is actually paid by another manufacturer a block or somewhere, or on Fifth Avenue — they will go to work and demand three times as much as the actual garment made by another man; isn’t that so? (Laughter.) Now, this clause is simply for the protection of the manufacturer. MR. COHEN : Of Beller & Schwarcz? MR. ROSENBERG: Yes. MR. COHEN : Where do the other firms come in ? MR. ROSENBERG: There are other fellows also. Furthermore, I wish to say in the beginning of the season we get together, a committee of us, with repre- sentatives of the manufacturers, and I had the experience of adjusting prices with Mr. Schwarcz many years ago. They made up their mind that this garment must be paid for, a certain garment $5 or $6 or $10. There was no question how long the garment takes. Do you know why ? Because Mr. Schwarcz’s men were tail- ors who thought that nobody can replace them, consequently they take advantage. They knew that Mr. Schwarcz or Mr. Jonasson needs exactly those tailors. MR. COHEN : Did you ever work for Schwarcz? 86 MR. ROSENBERG : No, I did not work for him, but I made prices with him for many years. Isn’t that so, Mr. Schwarcz? MR. SCHWARCZ: Yes. MR. ROSENBERG: It is the same in every factory. It depends on what kind of people the manufacturer employs. If the manufacturer employs strong union men MR. COHEN : May I ask a question? MR. ROSENBERG: Yes. MR. COEIEN : You say, if I understand you correctly, that it depends upon the manufacturer. Now, some of the manufacturers, as you have very well put it, pay tlieir men the highest rates of wages. To some of our manufacturers these prices are acceptable, as a matter of course. MR. ROSENBERG: I know that. MR. COHEN : Because they never have had anything lower than these fig- ures. MR. ROSENBERG: Yes. MR. COHEN: Now, when you come to the piecework, your people on your side have said that the reason you asked for 75 cents an hour as a minimum throughout the industry is because the piece worker looses money by reason of the poor arrangement of his work. I mean, the unsystematic arrangement; he is delayed in getting out his work. Well, now, upon our side, Mr. Rosenberg, we believe in the good factories that does not exist ; in the well organized busi- nesses that does not exist. The piece worker can be directed by the foreman in the same economic fashion that the week worker is. Now, isn’t it a little un- reasonable to fix a minimum so high as this for piece work? Doesn’t it occur to you that you are more likely to get justice by the adjustment between shop com- mittees and the manufacturers on these piece workers each season than you are by fixing a flat rate? I am merely asking the question. I haven’t any opinion of my own. MR. ROSENBERG: I will try to explain you. It is absolutely the custom of adjusting prices with the employees from each shop. As far as the union goes, we interfere very little in the adjustment of prices, because even if I should be a first class operator or a tailor, I cannot tell exactly how much a particular gar- ment is worth unless I should make this garment myself. The idea of 75 cents per hour is not exactly — ^we want 75 cents per hour, but this should be the basis on which we should guide ourselves. THE CHAIRMAN : Let me ask you this, to put it in another way, Mr. Rosen- berg: Wouldn’t it be a fairer arrangement, without regard to what the week’s wages are, that if men work by the piece they ought, on an average, to receive as much as if they were working by the week? Isn’t that a standard which would be more nearly just than the standard of 75 cents an hour? MR. ROSENBERG: I will explain you, counsellor. It will come out this way, anyhow. They will not earn more than four dollars a day anyhow, but this is merely drafted to have a basis on which to be guided. Now, for instance, the manufacturers understand it well that we adjust prices in the beginning of the season for some certain numbers — 50 or 100 or 200 numbers. Two weeks after the adjustment of prices the designer makes half a dozen new samples, not identi- cal with those that have been adjusted prior in the season. I am a good union man and a strong union man, and I know the union will back me up in all my demands. I will get together with all my other fellow union men, and I will say, regardless of what demand we have made at the time of the settlement, “The boss is busy now, and we will get him by the neck and we will demand five dollars for a garment that is actually worth only two dollars,’’ because we know the union will 87 back us up. The manufacturer, on the other side, feels that the season is starting to slow up. He has got a new garment on which to adjust prices. He will go to work and see that he will not pay more than $1.50 for a garment which is worth three or four dollars, because he is on the other side, in position to take advantage of the tailor, so for the protection of the manufacturer, as well as for the protection of our own men, we should go to work and adjust prices in this manner. For instance, a new garment has been made by the designer. Nobody knows the value of the garment, because there is no such thing as fixing a real price on cloaks — absolutely not. It depends upon how the garment is turned out. In one shop a certain garment maybe is worth — or they pay only fifty cents for operating — while in the next shop the garment may be worth two dollars. It depends ac- cording to the workmanship. In one place the operator may sew them together that they should look like a regular rag, while in the next shop, where the manu- facturer needs high-class goods, his foreman will not accept a garment which is inferior made, so the consequence is in a high-class shop it takes the operator twice as much time in turning this garment. What we want first is this ; that is, to abolish competition ; each manufacturer, no matter what class of goods he turns out, he should know exactly that an operator has to earn between four and six dol- lars a day. If the garments are of a cheap quality the operator will turn out, let us say, ten a day; consequently he will have to pay him sixty cents per garment for making it. In another shop, where the operator cannot turn out more tnan four garments a day, the same agreement should be paid a dollar and a half, and that will equalize the conditions. We are here, as we have said yesterday, to abolish unfair competition, and the moment there is no fixed standard how much a man should earn in a day, and the moment there is no system how to be guided, we will have the same identical story. In shops, as I have said before — in shops where men are strongly organized among themselves — diey will get an advantage over the manufacturer, and I guess the manufacturer will have to pay enormous prices in the shops where the non-union men are working, but the men to some extent who are not so strongly organized, they will go to work and fix a price for same identical garment at a dollar less, and where will the union manufacturer come in? That is our contention. MR. LONDON : I want to ask one question. THE CHAIRMAN ; I believe Mr. Schlessinger wanted to be heard. I would like to have you state what you understand the question is that I am asking. MR. SCHLESSINGER: According to your opinion THE CHAIRMAN : What do you understand the question is that I want to have answered? MR. SCFILESSINGER : The question that you asked me is this. Why is it that the wages of the cutter is 54 cents an hour, and the wages of the piece- worker is 75 cents an hour. THE CHAIRMAN : No, it is not. That is not the whole thing. The other question is this MR. SCHLESSINGER: Is this one of the questions? THE CHAIRMAN : Yes ; that is one part of it. MR. SCHLESSINGER: Let me first answer this. THE CHAIRMAN : No ; I want you to answer the two, because when you are answering you want to have the two in your mind. The other is this : Your piece rate would, at eight hours a day, make $36.00 a week for every person, no matter what the grade of work and the skill is. Now, you do not pay every person the same when they are working by the week. Why should you pay every person the same when they are — the same class of workers the same when they are work- ing by the hour? 88 MR. SCHLESSINGER : I will first answer the first question, Why is it that the scale for a cutter is 54 cents an hour and the scale for a piece worker we will put down as high as 75 cents an hour? THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. MR. SCHLESSINGER: I want you gentlemen to understand that every working man loses time, no matter what class of work he is doing, and no matter how many hours a day he is working. He does not work the whole day steady, so to say. He must lose time, as I will prove it to you. THE CHAIRMAN : We will assume that. MR. SCHLESSINGER: Then, if you will assume that, I am willing to show you that any week worker is not working more than six hours a day, actual work. THE CHAIRMAN : That is your explanation? MR. SCHLESSINGER: No; I am not through yet. A man that is willing to work, a man that is really sincere, cannot put in any more than six hours a day of work in an eight-hour day, if he wants to. He cannot put in any more work. Half an hour a day is being lost by every person. We can make up our minds that we must work from eight o’clock in the morning to five o’clock in the even- ing, say, with half an hour for lunch, but we know that half an hour will be lost in eight or nine hours’ time. Another hour and a half of time is being lost by things that have to be found out, how they are to be made. For instance, the manufacturer gets a new style, a new garment to make. When the manufacturer \vants to get a new garment, it takes more time to turn it out, the first few gar- ments, than it takes to turn out the next garment. THE CHAIRMAN : Everybody admits that. MR. SCHLESSINGER: Everybody knows that, yes. The manufacturer brings in a new garment in the cutting room. The cutter has to waste some time for it, but he is being paid for the time that he wastes — for the time that is bound to be lost by every man. by everybody, while the tailor is not being paid for the time that is lost. For instance, when the tailor gets in a new garment, and if that gar- ment takes him twice or three times as much as it would take him if he were used to it — when we speak of 75 cents an hour for a piece worker it means for an actual hour’s work, for the time he works. That means less than 50 cents an hour. THE CHAIRMAN ; I think I understand your view on that. Now, let me have your view on the second question. MR. SCHLESSINGER: All right. As far as the skill is concerned, men that are not able — we have manufacturers here THE CHAIRMAN : Call them “A,” “B” and “C.” MR. SCHLESSINGER: Say that “A” is making a first-class line of work and “B” is making a middle line of work, and “C” is making a common line of work, so just as well as we have three different grades of manufacturers we also have three different grades of employees. We have employees under “A” and employees classified under “B” and employees classified under “C.” One of those classified under “A.” will not undertake — will not go to work for “B” or “C.” One classified under “B” or “C” will not go to work for “A.” THE CHAIRMAN ; Yes. MR. SCHLISSINGER : In class “A” there may be one distinction; one man can make more garments, while another man can make less garments. THE CHAIRMAN : You have not understood me, apparently. My point is this: If a cutter works by the week, he will get more than a skirt finisher gets? MR. SCHLESSINGER : Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : In the same employment, in the same factory “A.” MR. SCHLESSINGER : Yes. 89 THE CHAIRMAN-; But if they are working by the piece, and you take their measurements by the hour, you are proposing that they all shall be paid at the rate of 75 cents per hour — at a rate which would be equivalent to 75 cents per hour. MR. COHEN: May 1 ask Mr. Greenberger a question? May I ask you a question? You are a cutter, are you not? MR. GREENBERGER: Yes.' MR. COHEN : Now, do you know of any reason why the operators should lose time when the cutters do not lose time? MR. GREENBERGER: Well, as far as I know, I believe that the operators are compelled to lose more time than the cutters. MR. COHEN: Why? MR. GREENBERGER ; The cutter, in the morning when he comes in, he gets a ticket from the foreman; that is, generally in the larger housee, in the majority of houses — they have a man there to hand him the goods ; it is all laid out for him ; all he has to do is to open up the goods and separate the work, whereas the opera- tors, as has been explained, have first to go to the foreman and sometimes to wait before they receive the bundle, and before he is able to do any work it will take him some time to arrange everything before he can start to work. Now, my idea is this THE CHAIRMAN: Just answering that particular question or Mr. Cohen’s, isn’t that simply a question of factory management? MR. COHEN : That is the point. May I interrupt you just a minute while that point is hot? It would seem to us, and that is the point we want to make so that we can be corrected if we are in error — it seems to me that that would re- ward the ill-regulated factory and would punish the well-regulated factory. MR. GREENBERGER: The cutters and pressers who are under the schedule of week workers, they know that at the end of the week they are to receive a full salary, irrespective of whether they do a full day’s work. They know the salary is waiting for them at the end of the week. MR. COHEN : Even if they do no work at all? MR. GREENBERGER: Yes, even if they do no work at all. On the other hand, piece workers in figuring an average of 75 cents an hour, which would make them earn $6.75 a day, were they employed continuously, but in view of the fact that they have to lose so much time, even if they work in the shop from eight to half-past five,, the time they would have to lose would only bring the average around 35 or 40 cents an hour. MR. COHEN : Wouldn't the remedy for that be an average earning for the week, instead of a minimum for the hour? MR. LONDON ; Yes. MR. GREENBERGER : In answer to Mr. Cohen’s question, figuring by the week they would not earn $36.00 a week ; absolutely not. They could not earn more than possibly $25.00 or $26.00 a week. MR. COHEN : In other words, Mr. Greenberger, you thirk that this 75 cents an hour minimum would produce an average earning for the piece worker of the figure you have mentioned? What is that figure that you mentioned? MR. GREENBERGER: Possibly $24.00 or $26.00. It would positively reduce that average, and would not be $36.00 a week, because the people themselves would not be able to sit down continuously and earn this average of 75 cents an hour. On the other hand, if we only figure at an average of 50 cents an hour, they would naturally earn so much less than $26 00 a week. MR. LONDON : V/hen you speak of an average of $26.00, you do not mean an average of $26.00 a week during the year? 90 MR. GREENBERGER: No, for a week, I said; not during the whole year. MR. LENNON: I want to see if we cannot get the Chairman to explain the situation. I may misunderstand the Chairman, and I want to see whether I do or not. The Chairman calls our attention to the fact that we have a list here of a large number of people who ought to be employed, and that they are to receive different wages. On the other hand, that when we talk about pieceworkers at 75 cents an hour, that we have treated them all alike; why don’t we make a difference; that is what you want? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. LENNON: I am going to answer it, although I am not a cloak maker. The cutters are under that head of $26.00 a week. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, and we will assume from what Mr. Greenberger has said that it is equivalent to $26.00 a week. MR. LENNON: Well, without regard to that. The people for whom the 75 cent standard has been fixed are the same class of people, just as much as all cutters are the same class of people. Tfiey are not different classes of people; they are operators and tailors, and with the same general skill and with the same general ability, and therefore in asking 75 cents an hour, when they get work- it puts them on the same equal basis with the cutters, who receive $26.00 a week. MR. COHEN: You do not mean to insist, Mr. Lennon, that all of the pieceworkers in the cloak industry are as competent as the cutters; that all pieceworkers are MR. LENNON: That I have not said. THE CHAIRMAN : Then you do not answer the question? MR. LENNON: I think I can answer it. The cutters are not all of the same class of skill. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but this is the average cutter, as I understand. MR. LENNON: Yes, and that is the average operator and the average tailor. MR. COHEN : Mr. Jonasson thinks he can help to clear up your mind on this thing. MR. JONASSON: I think I know exactly what the Chairman is trying to strive at, and that is the basis of the calculation of 75 cents per hour. They take that for the average man, if he is working steadily — that he shall earn 75 cents an hour. In other words, if he makes a garment which takes four hours to make, they want $3.00 for that garment. If it takes six hours to make, $4.50. The garment which an average tailor can make in four hours it will take a poor tailor five hours, and a better tailor only three hours. The better tailor will make more than the average and the poor tailor less. THE CHAIRMAN : My question has not been answered yet. What you say there is a perfectly clear proposition, and it has to do with the cutters or with anyone else; I mean, a man of greater skill will do more than a man of less skill, and that is the general rule in any business on piecework; but it is recognized that in this place there are different operations which require a different degree of skill. As Mr. Polakoff said, to be a good cutter you must have worked five or six years, and to be a responsible baster five or six weeks would be sufficient. Now, on his mechanical skill, the cutter gets twice as much at least as this skirt baster, but on the theory of the piecework scale as laid down here the skirt baster would be paid just as much as the cutter. It is the different operation and not the different degree of skill in the same class of trade. 91 MR. JONASSON: I think Mr. London explained that. They have a clerical error in the agreement. They did not make the distinction between tailors and finishers and operators which they intended to. MR. LONDON: It is the tailors that we intend to pay 75 cents an hour MR. COHEN: But you do not say that in your agreement. It says prices for piecework. MR. LONDON: I understand that the Chairman desired to get an an- swer to the ([uestion that he has asked. I believe the only person who tried to give it to him is Mr. Schlessinger, but he has not made it clear. Mr. Schlessinger divided the operators into various classes, and the manufac- turers into various classes, and he said it worked automatically in the trade that a skilful operator goes to the most reputable firm; he would not dare to dream — the man who has no skill of the highest grade would not dare to go into a firm that does the best work, and so through the trade it works almost automatically, that a first class operator goes to a first class firm. The second class operator goes to a second class firm. It works automat- ically, as if there were some supervisory power beyond it. Tha:t was Mr. Schlessinger’s explanation. In addition to that, I desire to say that the word “operator” in the cloak trade means a man of skill, and 75 cents an hour for actual time spent in the making of a garment, that does not mean the time spent in the factory. THE CHAIRMAN: I am not raising the question whether 75 cents is too much or too little, but I want to know why they are paid the same. I assume that in Mr. Jonasson’s establishment that he has not only cutters and jacket pressers and under pressers, but he has also some skirt finishers. MR. LONDON: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, we will assume that Mr. Jonasson’s establish- ment is a first class Class A establishment. MR. LONDON: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, if he employs the skirt cutter by the w'eek he would pay that skirt cutter $22.00, and if he employs the skirt finisher by the week he would pay that skirt finisher $12.00, according to your scale? MR. LONDON: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: That is nearly one-half of what the other earns? MR. LONDON: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Now, if he happened to have a desire to employ these people by the piece instead of by the week, you would make the rate the same, which, I say, would either be an injustice apparently to the skirt cutter, or it would be an injustice to Mr. Jonasson in making him to pay twice as much for the skirt finisher as if he had been doing it by the week. MR. LONDON: I think it will help this situation if I will read the balance of that paragraph 20, which I have not read before. It is a printer’s mistake here, I see. It reads as follows: “And shall the prices for piecework now agreed upon fail to produce that wage to the average pieceworker, the prices shall be subject to revision in order to produce uniformity in the trade.” THE CHAIRMAN: That is, if it fails, but in this case that I am putting it exceeds. MR. LONDON: All right. I understand that in the cloak trade what you call “skill” means ability to produce a garment — speed in producing gar- ments. A skillful operator means a man who can turn out a garment in three hours. MR. COHEN: No, no. There is some art even in the cloak trade. 92 MR. LENNON: I believe I see what the President is after, or I think so. Now. the piigceworker for which we are trying to fix the piece scale is not to be employed by the week at all. It is not subject to that construction at all. He is not to be an employee by the week under any circumstances. THE CHAIRMAN : If that is so, that is a different proposition. MR. LENNON : That is the proposition. We are fixing the scale for piece- workers who are not permitted to work by the week. THE CHAIRMAN : If that is so, that answers it. Is that the answer ? MR .KLEINMAN : I want to say that a rate of 75 cents for piece workers does not apply to skirt finishers, because the majority of skirt finishers they work by the week, and if it happens that a skirt finisher works by piece, it does not mean to say if he works by piece that he shall be paid at the rate of 75 cents an liour, but $12.00 a week. THE CHAIRMAN : That is an answer to it, if that is the case. MR. DYCHE: The average pieceworker is the highest skilled man in our trade, for before a man is put on piecework he works as a helper, mostly by the week, and before a manufacturer gives a man the making of a whole garment he must be a skilled man, and our pieceworkers are the highest skilled men in our industry. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, Mr. Cohen, you and your associates accept the statement of Mr. Kleinman as being the proper answer? MR. COHEN : Yes. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest this, that all of this dif- ficulty has been created solely because a lawyer was attempting to make cloaks. In other words, the language of the agreement failed to convey to us those diffi- culties of the industry which both the worker and the manufacturer understood, and it is a reflection upon our profession, sir. (Laughter.) MR. COHEN : Now, some of the gentlemen on our side have listened with attention to the presentation of views by the gentlemen on the other side, and have some points of view which they desire to present. THE CHAIRMAN: I should be ver}/^ glad indeed to hear them. MR. MEYER: I should like to have the pieceworker defined. I should like to ask is he under the head of a pieceworker ; does the operator come under that ? May the presser be a pieceworker ; may the skirt finisher be a pieceworker, and so forth. We should like to have a definite definition of the classes under which piecework may come, in order to discuss the problem among ourselves to greater advantage. THE CHAIRMAN : Let me ask, Mr. Meyer, whether you can answer this question ; if not, possibly one of the other delegates MR. MEYER: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN ; What class of persons are there now in your and in other factories, if you are able to state, who are paid by the piece? MR. MEYER : I am speaking of personal experience ; and I will start at the bottom of the list. I will say in our establishment a buttonhole maker is not paid by the piece. The skirt finisher is paid, where they exist in our factory — there are very few THE CHAIRMAN : They are paid by the piece? MR. MEYER: Yes. Skirt basters, I do not know. Skirt makers, as a rule, are not paid by the week. THE CHAIRMAN: Who? MR. MEYER : Skirt makers, as a rule, are not paid by the week. The sample maker is a week worker. I have no knowledge of the reefer presser or the reefer under presser, and what he calls the piece presser means the man who takes care 93 of small parts, shaping sleeves, etc. This man is a week worker. The skirt under presser, he is a week worker. The skirt presser is at times, and maybe one or two others. The under presser is always a week worker. The jacket presser may or may not be one. Cutters and skirt cutters in good concerns, as far as I know, are always paid by the week, while piecework is done in other factories, I understand. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, Mr. Lefcourt, would the practice be the same in your factory substantially as it is in Mr. Meyer’s? MR. LEFCOURT : Absolutely. THE CHAIRMAN : And that would be practically the rule in all of the fac- tories? MR. SODOWSKY : At times we engage operators by the week, and they also give them helpers by the week, and all the rest of them are just the way they want to have them. THE CHAIRMAN: That is, by the piece? MR. SODOWSKY: No; the pressers are by the week, and the cutters by the week. MR. LONDON : In your place all are paid according to this scale here, ap- proximately? MR. SODOWSKY : Not at all times. At times we have it done by the week. MR. SCHLESSINGER : The prices for operators and tailors working by the week under this contract shall be, etc. ; instead of having pieceworkers, and some of you may think that we also include the skirt finishers that work by piece, and others may think they are also including the skirt makers working by the week, etc. The prices for piecework for operators and tailors shall be on the basis of 75 cents per hour; why not put it that way? MR. SODOWSKY: The question that has arisen that it has been 75 cents per hour, is because they have not gotten any work; they work only about six hours in a day. THE CHAIRMAN : That is the point. MR. SODOWSKY : If I would give them work steady, would I be allowed to pay less than 75 cents? THE CHAIRMAN : I understand that it does not contemplate payment by the hour, but that the rate of 75 cents suggested simply is a standard of what they are expected to earn. They might just as well, and I suppose, a great deal better select as a standard what a man would earn in a week. MR. COHEN : May I say that the discussion on both sides has left me with the feeling that after conference with my people I can make a proposed amend- ment which will carry out the intention of both parties. There may be a differ- ence in the figures, but at all events I think we can work it out so as to carry out the intent of both parties. THE CHAIRMAN : Now, at the beginning this morning Mr. Cohen, you sug- gested that we should finish the question of wages and sanitary conditions, and then you would be prepared to present all the matters MR. COHEN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : Is there anything on the subject of sanitary conditions which ought to be referred to before we adjourn? MR. LONDON : One word only, and that will take one minute. Of course there can be no discussion on that. Sanitary conditions are necessary to the trade, but there is one little thing that I want to specifically say, that sanitary conditions are violated in almost all of the factories. When we drew up this agreement, we had a meeting of the representatives of the various locals, and the buttonhole makers asked me to insert the condition in the contract that no button- 94 hole machines should be placed in close proximity to the lavatory in the factory. The buttonhole maker in many factories seems to be the worst treated employee, and his machine is almost always placed in close proximity — (Laughter) — I did not want to have that in the contract, because 1 was going to mail it to the trade, and I did not want it to go out to the world that such a thing existed in the cloak trade, but I do ask that no machine shall be placed within a distance of lo feet fromi the lavatory, and that the lavatory shall be kept in proper condition. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Lefcourt desires to say something. MR. LEFCOURT : I would like to know from Mr. London whether that is the only complaint that comes under sanitary conditions? MR. LONDON : No, that is a specific complaint. In the trade conditions are horrible in many factories. THE CHAIRMAN : Well, we will not hear them all now, but we will wait until after lunch. MR. COHEN : May I say this, that in the published discussion of this strike emphasis seems to have been laid upon the unsanitary conditions in the industry, and the better class of manufacturers were very sensitive about that, because of the fact that they had been making earnest efforts to create sanitary conditions and had met considerable difficulties on the part of their employees. Now, un- doubtedly in some of the shops of the cloak manufacturers unsanitary conditions exist, and we have learned since these contracts have been signed up that con- tracts have been signed with some manufacturers who, according to our standards, have unsanitary shops, and we were rather astonished when the statement of grievances came to us that the sanitary conditions were eliminated, as a grievance. In the statement of grievances there was nothing said about sanitary conditions. I was very glad, therefore, when Mr. London, in making up the topic, included that for discussion here. Now, we are very much concerned about this question, because we had some pride in our industry, and we know that it is exceedingly difficult to observe sanitary conditions. I am frank to confess that I do not see that it will make very much progress here to go into the specific details of un- sanitary conditions, and I will suggest to my learned brother that he take under advisement with his people the proposition, that both parties establish as the re- sult of this conference a board of sanitary supervision, on which there shall be people representing the public who shall endeavor to establish a standard to which factories in this industry shall conform, and when that board of sanitary control makes its recommendations, we will legislate for our members on our side, so that no worker will work where these conditions do not exist, and no honorable cloak manufacturer will remain a member of our Association if he does not observe these conditions. I ask that you take that under advisement and give us your answer this afternoon. THE CHAIRMAN : We understand that Mr. London will take that under advisement. The time for the adjournment for luncheon has arrived and we will now adjourn. Recess taken until 2 130 P. M. 95 AFTERNOON SESSION, 2:30 P. M. MR. DYCHE: Owing to tlie fact that one of our members on this Board cannot attend, we have substituted Mr. Abraham Bizno. THE CHAIRMAN ; Mr. Schlessinger, I believe that on the subject of sanitation you wish to say something before we proceed. MR. LENNON : Mr. President, I was going to say that I did not under- stand tliat we would open that subject after dinner, but we desire to say a few words upon that subject before taking up the other matters. It prob- ably is true, from what I can discover, after being in this conference now going on the second day, that so far as sanitation in particular shops is con- cerned, that the gentlemen who are here have shops that have reached prob- ably the best level, and the best standards that exist in the trade, but those of us who have been a long time in the labor movement, and those men who have been humanitarians and have taken an interest in the uplift of the human race, have discovered that the existence of unsanitary conditions, whether it be the lack of ventilation or the lack of proper toilets, or whether it be from the action of the individual employees who throw filth and dirt around the floors, or whether it he from the lack of the owners of the shops to see that their shops are properly cleaned out, that there is apparently almost an abso- lute impossibility to lift up people much who work under such conditions. We find that people who live under such conditions in their homes, that come iji contact with excellent conditions in the shops, that they learn, and learn rapidly, to he men and women of the right kind, but wdiere they have the conditions in the shop it is always followed nearly by the same conditions in the home, and therefore there is no influence of uplift because of cleanliness. The old saying that cleanliness is akin to godliness the experience of the human race has demonstrated to be absolutely correct. There are some axims that are considered excellent that are no good when they are analyzed, but that one through the centuries has proved to be correct in principle, and while there may not be at the present time, and possibly is not, any neces- sary changes that might be suggested in the shops that are represented here this afternoon, there is a general necessity in the trade for decided reforms upon this question of sanitary shops, and not only is the ttade interested, but the public are interested ; you are interested, if you buy anything for your wife or for your children, if you have them, that is purchased in any of these shops — when I say “in these shops” I do not mean particular shops;, but in the trade ; if the conditions are not there favorable for the produc- tion of clean, healthy garments, you are in danger, and the public generally is in danger, and we want by some means of co-operation along perhaps — we want to establish by some means oif co-operation between the members of the Union a condition of affairs that shall tend toward respectability and manhood and womanhood in the industry, and I want to say this for the trade unions, in this matter, and I have no hesitation in saying it anywhere and under any circumstances that whatever conditions there are in the world to-day, in the civilized countries of the world, looking toward proper sanitary inspection and proper conditions under which men shall work, it is due absolutely fundamentally to the labor movement and to the labor organi- zations. They were the pioneers in the agitation, and they carried it on when no one else was to be found to help them carry it on, but fortunateU such men as our Chairman and a goodly number of other men scattered all over our country and over the world, who are interested in human uplift found that in this matter we are standing for the thing which is unques- tionably right, and have come into the ranks of the trade union movement to 96 promote this reform, which is so essential for the welfare of us all. While we have not brought this matter up and offered any discussion, it never caused an} complaint that I have heard of — I don’t know that there is not — or no complaint, so far as I have heard of, regarding the gentlemen’s shops who are on the committee, but we brought it up because we believed that there should be made a record of our protest against the continuance of the unsanitary conditions in any shop where cloaks and skirts are made, in, say. New York City or any other city. MR. COHEN : Mr. Lennon, we brought it up, too. It was not in your list of grievances, and I asked that it be added, and what I asked Mr. Lon- don before the recess was that you should take up the practical suggestions for reform that I made, if it be practicable, and also advise us of any sug- gestion that you might have to make. It is all well enough for us to sit here and express hopes and ideals, but we have come into this conference with the idea of not only settling the strike, but, as I have assured you, sir, per- sonally, and assured Mr. London, of doing some constructive work for the industry, and we are not going to leave it, if we can help it, without some record of accomplishment on that score. I concur in all that you say, except that I do not think you quite do enough credit to the humanitarians and the sociologists who have not always belonged to the trade unions. Some of us have practiced law, and have done our share toward meeting the conditions, and we do not have any unions in our profession — ~ MR. LONDON: What is that? You have the greatest union in the world. MR. COHEN : At all events, we discipline the members of our union who do not observe certain standards. MR. LENNON : The reason that I did not deal specifically wdth any suggestion was that it appeared to me more appropriate to do that under the general heading of how to make effective the things that we discussed. MR. COHEN: I did not mean that you should discuss it at this time. My idea was that I .should communicate that suggestion to )^ou, so that you might take it under advisement, and when we come to consider it you might be prepared to discuss it. MR. SCHLESSINGER : I want to say that the thousands and tens of thousands of people employed in our trade are working under the most unsanitary conditions, which will be proven here in a few minutes by one of our number, Mr. Bizno. I just want to offer a remedy for it; the remedy that manufacturers should not give out any work to any individuals that are making this work at home. MR. COHEN : We have agreed upon that. THE CHAIRMAN : W e have agreed upon that ; that has been agreed upon. MR. SCHLESSINGER: This was understood under sub-contracting. MR. COHEN : Oh, no ; a special topic under work in tenement houses. MR. SCHLESSINGER: All right. It is not that we are against tene- ment houses, but of course we are against the unsanitary conditions in tene- ment houses. THE CHAIRMAN : If it is prohibited for all purposes, then everybody could have his own reason. MR. SCHLESSINGER: That is all right, but I want to have it for my reason. It will be proven that thousands and tens of thousands of people in our trade are working under the most unsanitary conditions. 97 MR. LONDON : Do yovi want to make a statement about the conditions, as you discovered them, and how you came to discover them THE CHAIRMAN: In New York City? MR. LONDON : Yes. MR. BIZNO: When I came here I did not consider that that would come up for consideration. I take it that both the manufacturers and the men would be interested to have sanitary workshops, and to have the men work under sanitary conditions, so that there ought to be reall_y no difference of opinion, and I understand and am told that there is no difference of opinion. At the same time the evil is as old as the trade. MR. COHEN : May I interrupt the gentleman a moment. We are con- strained by certain limitations here; both sides have agreed to expedite the decision. Now, unless the gentlemen believe that it will facilitate matters by going into the details of unsanitary conditions, it would seem to me that if the suggestion that a normal standard be made we could leave out the discussion before such a joint committee of the conditions, because if we agree upon the general principle we ought to be able to devise a standard, and it would seem to me it would take several days if we go‘ into the discus- sion of what the standard should be. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. London, what do you say? MR. LONDON : I would ask for indulgence to permit Mr. Bizno to state generally what he ha.s discovered in the course of his investigations in the City of New York. I believe it will take not longer than five minutes. THE CHAIRMAN : All right. You will proceed. MR. BIZNO: What has been illustrated by Mr. Schlessinger, that people from the large shops take work home in large numbers I found to be time. I \yas investigating as a special agent for the Federal Government the sub- ject matter of the clothing trade, particularly at that time with reference to the employment of women and children, but my business carried me through most of the factories here or a very large number of them, so that I do know that men take work home from the clothing shops, from the shop to be worked at home, and I found the homes to be not sanitary places where it is proper to make such garments. We found, for instance, on a 25-foot lot by 70, more flats, bedrooms, I think, about 7x9 ; ikitchens 9x12 or 14. In a very large number of cases the bedroom had no window to the outside, not even to an airshaft. In some cases it was a small airshaft. Very small liedrooms, packed with bed clothes and boarders, and clothes and skirts and bedbugs and germs of all kinds. THE CHAIRMAN : Well, Mr. Bizno, it is your opinion, is it not, that all work in the tenement houses should be prohibited? MR. BIZNO: Yes. I beg to take a few minutes to show why it should be prohibited. MR. LONDON : I want to have you state what you found in the shops? MR. BIZNO: We will get to that in a few minutes. MR. COHEN : You will be using up four five minutes soon. MR. BINZO: I would be through probably by this time if I had not been interrupted. So that we also found contagious diseases in these homes, car- ried, that is, along with the clothes and skirts, etc., and so that it was our opinion and the opinion of those that investigated that there is no sanitary home for ihe manufacture of clothing. That if you gave work out to be taken home you are taking chances of giving it out to a place where there will be bedbugs' and germs and contagious diseases. Now, with relation to the shops, very few are to be found that are properly sanitary. It is true 98 that the people have a low standard themselves. Even though you built the right kind of a factory, they have a very low standard, but it is also true that the employers are not taking any care of their factories. For instance, we found a place, a five-story building, where I think there was ten — twelve jshops in it. The factory was divided, but they did not have water in the place for about very near four weeks during the winter ; the thing was frozen up and the filth and stink in the place was beyond human endurance. It was said that the landlord was to fix that, and so the complamt was made against hin.. MR. COHEN; Where was the Board of Health all this time? MR. BINZO: Where were they? I was looking into it and making notes of it. MR. COHEN: Where was the Board of Health? MR. BINZO: I don’t know that they were notified. I was told that there was some kind of notification. Everybody was careless v/ith relation to it. MR. COHEN: There is a Sanitary Squad that goes around. MR. BIZNO: Unless the trade unions and the manufacturers co-operate for that purpose to maintain decent shops, the State and city authorities do not seem to be able to cope with this enormous problem, and I suggested to the mem- bers of the union that they make this a vital point in their demands. THE CHAIRMAN : Then I am right in understading, Mr. Bizno, that you heartily endorse Mr. Cohen’s recommendation that the union and the manufactur- ers’ association co-operate to secure the enforcement of a proper standard of sani- tation ? MR. BIZNO: Yes, sir; with all my heart and soul. THE CHAIRMAN : Does anybody disagree with that proposition ? MR. DYCHE: I want to point out one thing that has been left out in this discussion. I have been through many factories in the City of New York, Fifth avenue places, some of the finest places in the City of New York, that I found this, that while the showrooms are palaces — -I was astounded ; it was all right about their beauty; I did not expect showrooms to be as beautiful as they were, but just behind the showrooms there was a factory, and they were overcrowded. If the factory inspector would be there when the people were not in he would find a big, .spacious place, but if he were there when the people were working he would find machines one on top of the other. While the Fifth avenue factories are big and broad, yet the overcrowding of the people inside at the time of working makes it unsanitary on the face of it. It is a physical impossibility to keep them very ]\1R. LONDON ; You endorse the attitude taken by the other members of the committee ? MR. DYCHE: Yes; but I want this to go on the record, that some of the finest places in the City of New York, on Fifth avenue, are not MR. COHEN : If we are going to plead to an indictment, Mr. Chairman, we are leady to plead to it and be tried and hung, if we are guilty, but I do not think it is wise to make general charges of that sort if we are both going to try to im- prove conditions. MR. LONDON : Let us go to the next point. MR. BLOCH : I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in my opinion there is only one solution, and that is for the committee to consider when they act on this thing, and that is for the possible arrangement of factory inspectors, who will volunteer their services. MR. COHEN : We have more than that. May I say this, Mr. Chairman 99 MR. LOR DON : Pardon me. The statement ju.st made by a member of the committee about the appointment of sanitary inspectors, I would like to state that that is not the opinion of the committee. MR. BLOCH : I did not say it was. That is my opinion. MR. COHEN : We realize that the suggestion that I made requires a great deal of efficient work to carry it into effect. We are prepared, on our part, I may say that if the suggestion is adopted, to establish a corps of inspectors, paid inspec- tors. If your organization cannot afford to pay the whole expense, we will bear the larger burden of it. We are perfectly willing that you shall bear half of the expense, if you can do it out of your organization funds, but we want this general board of control to be so effective — to have reliable people, people whom your com- mittee selects, whose business it will be to visit, not only the shops of our own members, but as far as possible the shops of non-members of our association, and let their reports be the reports on which the General Board of Sanitary Supervis- ion will act. That is going to require efficient management ; going to require efficient skill ; going to require good inspection, and we expect to get out of it, by way of return, the knowledge on our part no loose criticism can hereafter be made, but it will have to be definite, and in addition to that, we will be able to make practi- cal tlie pride that we have in our industry at the present time. Now, we do not pretend to be white-robed angels on our side; we do not pretend that every man m our association has reached the highest stage of human development, but we are going to do our level best to raise him to that standard if we can. We are going to do our level best to make the standard clear, and we are going to do our best to make it enforcible, and we want you to feel that all of your people are not white- robed angels ; to see that you have your fair share of the job, and you must be willing to undertake it with us. We will join hands together, and we will get out of this strike, and as a result of it, I think, Mr. Chairman, we may get something that will lift the entire standard of civilization in our city. MR. COHEN : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, we have considered very care- fully all of the matters presented thus far with the various topics, and we desire to say we have re MR. LONDON ; We will proceed to the next point. MR. COHEN : Now, Mr. Chairman MR. LONDON : The report of the Manufacturers’ Association. MR. COHEN : I am not able to report on the two last propositions. I can take those up, if I may be permitted, and retire with my people for half or three- quarters of an hour, and we will come back then and report. THE CHAIRMAN : Very well ; you can do that, Mr. Cohen, and it will be agreeable to the committee. (A second recess was taken for thirty minutes.) 100 AFTER THE RECESS. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Cohen, are you ready to proceed? MR. COHEN : Yes, sir; I am ready to report. THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, you will give your attention. MR. COHEN : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we have considered very care- fully all of the matters presented thus far, with the various topics, and we desire to say that we have received a good deal of light and some learning from these deliberations. We are prepared to recommend to the members of our association the follow- ing : That, so far as practicable, and within a reasonable period, electric power be installed for the operation of machines, and that no charge for power be hereafter made to employees. We are prepared to recommend to our members that no charge be made against employees for materials, except, of course, when caused by the negligence or dis- honesty of the employee. We are not prepared to recommend the abolition of the deposit system for shut- tles, bobbins, silks and parts of machinery. We are prepared to recommend the establishment of a uniform deposit, say, of one dollar, with uniform deposit receipts, and are prepared to adopt rules and regulations in our association for enforcing the prompt return of all deposits to employees entitled to the same, and in such cases where at the present time the de- posits are of a larger amount than one dollar, we are prepared to recommend to our meinbers that they return the larger amount. In the cases where the employee is not in sufficient funds to make the deposit, and is deserving, the deposit shall be postponed until after the first pay day. We accept in good faith the assurance of the union representatives that they will join in the establishment of rules and regulations by which to discipline any mem- ber who shall be shown to have been guilty of theft of materials, and we shall agree not to employ any one so disciplined by the union. We are prepared ta recommend that no work be given to employees to take home at night. W believe, however, that rigorous disciplining of workers by us in our factories, and by the union in its organization will be necessary to make this regulation effective. In view of the existing provisions in the union constitution, we will in future make rio time contracts with union men. So far as union men are concerned, therefore, the question of security for the performance of contracts becomes purely theoretical. We agree to make no time contracts with any of our non-union shop employees, excepting foremen, designers and pattern graders. We are prepared to recommend that if the union will co-operate, all existing contracts with union men shall be cancelled and securities returned. We know of no discrimination against union men in our ranks, and no black- listing, but we are prepared to discipline rigorously any member of our association who hereafter shall be proven guilty of violating the pledge already given. We are prepared to recommend the adoption of the ten legal holidays suggested. We do not see how shops operating on Sunday for employees observing Saturday, and operating on Saturday for employees observing Sunday, can be closed entirely on either day. Is that clear? MR. LONDON: Yes. MR. COHEN : We are prepared to adopt rules and regulations for the regu- lar weekly payment of wages, and to recommend the payment of wages in cash. 101 1 hese regulations must, however, be worked out with due regard to our bookkeep- ing difficulties. We concede that no man should be deprived of pay for unfinished piecework by reason of the failure of the employer to furnish necessary material, and we con- cede that each pieceworker should be paid as soon as his work is inspected and apj)roved. We do not concede, however, that the employers in our association have been guilty of unreasonable practices in this respect, but if any exist we will do all in our power to reform these conditions. We are prepared to recommend that all sub-contracting in inside factories be abolished. We assume that if our members do abolish this system, union members will insist on its abolition in non-union shops. We are prepared to recommend the adoption of the following hours of labor : A working week shall consist of 53 hours in six working days. The following shall be the regular hours of labor ; On the first five working days of the week, from 8.00 A. M. to 12.00 noon; from i.oo P. M. to 6.00 P. M. Saturday, from 8.00 A. M. to 12.00 M., and from i.oo to 5.00 P. M., except dur- ing May, June, July and August, Saturday half holidays to begin at 12.00 o’clock. No overtime work shall he permitted between the 15th day of November and the 15th day of January, or during the months of June and July, except on sam- ples. No overtime work shall be permitted on Saturdays, except to workers not work- ing on Saturdays, nor on any day for more than two and one-half hours, nor be- fore 8.00 A. M. nor after 8.30 P. M. For overtime work all week workers shall receive double the usual pay. We are prepared to recommend the following wages for week workers, the fol- lowing minimum schedule of weekly wages : Machine cutters, $25.00. Regular cutters, $25.00. Canvas cutters, $12.00. Skirt cutters, $20.00. Jacket pressers, $20.00. Under pressers, $16.00. Skirt pressers, $18.00. Skirt under pressers, $14.00. Part pressers, $10.00. Reefer pressers, $16.00. Reefer underpressers, $12.00. Sample makers, $19.00. Sample skirt makers, $19.00. Skirt basters, $12.00. Skirt finishers, $9.00. We believe that buttonhole makers must be divided into two classes, on account of the different grades of work. We are prepared to recommend that in class “A” they shall receive a minimum of $1.20 per 100 buttonholes, and in class “B” a minimum of 80 cents per 100 buttonholes. These week prices we are prepared to recommend, on condition that the unions agree to establish at once the same standards throughout the industry. We agree that prices for operators and tailors and piece tailors, when working by piecework, shall be so adjusted that they shall earn a minimum equivalent to the minimum doing the same work by week work. We do not believe it is practicable to fix a standard per hour. 102 THE CHAIRMAN : On the question of sanitation, have you anything further ? MR. COHEN: Upon the question of sanitation, we renew our recom- mendation for a Joint Board of Sanitary Control, consisting of representa- tives from the Manufacturers’ Association, and representatives from the pub- lic, whose function it shall be to establish standards of sanitary conditions to which both organisations shall commit their members and be obligated to maintain to the best of their ability and to the extent of their power. THE CHAIRMAN: That covers, I believe, Mr. Cohen, all of the points? MR. COHEN: I think that covers everything that has been submitted to us. THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to ask what your pleasure is in regard to the consideration. MR. LENNON: I would like to know, first, when we can have a copy of the document. MR. LONDON: No. Can’t you supply us now with a copy of it? MR. COHEN: I have only my own notes that I have made. You have a stenographer here, and I suggest that one or the other of the stenographers can go and write it out. MR. LENNON: We will retire just a minute and then we will see. (The Committee of the Unions retired from the hearing room.) MR. LENNON: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the committee represent- ing the unions feels that it is absolutely impossible for us to pass upon these propositions without having them before us, and in addition to that we feel that there is — that the matter of how any agreement could be made effective is of such vast importance in dealing with this question we ought to discuss that matter this afternoon, and after having discussed that we will have on both sides the ideas expressed as to how an agreement might be made effective and operative, and then we will be prepared to not only judge of the specific things that have been presented but also to judge of the possibility of making them effective, and it is the suggestion of our committee that that other subject be now taken ':p for consideration. THE CHAIRMAN: Any objection, Mr. Cohen? MR. COHEN: Why, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me— -I think that the substantive law should be agreed upon before we proceed to the administra- tive law. I have no doubt of our ability to work out the effectiveness of whatever agreement we arrive at, and I am sure that if you will be good enough to lend us your assistance Mr. London and I will attempt to draft an agreement between both parties to the conference that will be workable. I think that before we go into a discussion of the method of enforcing the agreement we ought t o. have an expression of opinion upon these important matters while our minds are fresh upon them. THE CHAIRMAN: I should be very glad to hear from you further, Mr. Lennon. MR. LENNON: I would say that the matter of how to make an agree- ment operative seems to us to be so interwoven and so essential to the agree- ment itself that we ought to have it before the committee. THE CHAIRMAN : I think — if I may be allowed to express my opinion upon it — I think undoubtedly before anybody is bound to anything — it is vei) proper that we should consider the methods, because in order that we may make up our minds, every one of us, as to the probability of a thing agreed upon being actually enforced, b’ut I think, on the other hand, that it is very important, when we come to consider the methods of enforcement. 103 to know what we have got to enforce, and for that reason I should think we would make the i/est progress by seeing whether on each one of these eleven topics we could reach an agreement as to what it is that we want to enforce, and if we do reach an agreement upon them, that agreement having been only tentative, nothing being agreed upon until everything is agreed upon, but provisionally agreeing upon each one of these, so far as we can, and then proceed to the last and most important question, that of practically making the agreement operative, but that we ought to proceed to take up each of these specific remedies and discuss what it is that we can agree upon. Of course, I realize that we cannot do that now without having them before you. MR. COHEN; We do not expect that. We expect that an adjournment will be taken, and I am prepared to arrange with the other side that the cour- tesies of our stenographic staff and our stenographer may be available to them while the recess is going on, but we have promised, sir, to make an earnest effort to meet the complaints of our employees, and I think we have to some extent at least fulfilled our duty. We have answered practically every question that has been put to us, and I think we are entitled to know whether our answers ce the same punishment as exists in other associations for which I am counsel — discipline, suspension in cases where the offense is of minor consequence, and ultimate expulsion if it is of serious or con- tinuous flagrancy. We accept absolutely now the proposition that you should have a strong union. We want your union to be so powerful that when it sends a Dyche or a Rosenberg or a Bloch to a conferncce, it will never again be necessary for them to go back for further instructions to agree with us. We know we have the confidence of our members, so that our proposals and our acceptances of your proposals will be carried out by our association. We want you men, or the men who take your places hereafter, so to have the confidence of your members that when you come to this table and make solemn assurances you will not stay awake all night to be certain, or debating whether or not your people will stand by you, and the issue to-day, gentlemen, is whether as a practical matter you can control your people so as to make your association a really effective one. We do not undertake to get into our association every cloak manufacturer in New York, but, Mr. Chairman, we propose to use every legitimate argument to convince every cloak and skirt and suit manufacturer in this town that it is his business to belong to our association. It is his business as a man : it is his busi- ness as a business man — because we propose to speak for him in making obligations with the employees hereafter, and we shall go with this conference and the results of this conference as the best arguments that we can make to these men to get them into our association. We do not expect to get all ; we cannot get all, but we will do our best, and we expect you, Mr. London, with the same eloquence and per^ suasive powers which you have to endeavor to convince everv man in our estab- lishments that the results that you have produced here are the results of organiza- tion, and that he is loyally bound to help the organization that helped to produce that result, and our doors will be wide open to you to use that persuasion ; we shall never endeavor to interfere with it. Indeed, we shall co-operate with you in mak- ing the men who have differed with you in the past see your point of view : but you would be the last man in the world, sir, to ask us to surrender any of the principles that we hold dear. You would respect us less if we did, and we would respect you less if you did, and that principle you have recognized, sir. in your frank statement that you do not come to control our factories. 122 Now, it seems to me that with that principle so clear — with that principle, or, perhaps if I may go back a moment — let us lay clown the principles on which we shall construct this edifice, this fundamental stone. The first is, as stated by Mr. I.ondon, that it is essential that a strong union organization shall exist. The sec- ond principle, not stated by Mr. London, but I am sure implied, is that our associa- tion should be a strong association. The third principle is that we should, to- gether, the groups who are here now on both sides of the table, give all their best intellect to the job of finding the ways and means of carrying out that co-operation. The principles that I have accepted from Mr. London in his address is that you do not come to control our factories. Norv, gentlemen, ]\Ir. London has said that there will continue to be a contest between us. We lawyers have learned that the truth is best ascertained when two people charged with the duty each of presenting his side, presents it with the greatest vigor and with the greatest force, and while there may be error on both sides, the result of that conflict is the truth, and we expect you to be loyal to your ideals, loyal to your propositions, and we shall expect you to expect us to be loyal to ours, and we shall hereafter try to find out your reasons ; we want you to try to find out ours. Good God, men, is it necessary to have war to settle such conflicts of opinion as that? Is it necessary that so many people should be suffering in order that we may adjust prices? In order that we may abolish unsanitary conditions ? In order that we may abolish tenement house work? If we join hands across this table and leave this group in this room work together, ought not war to be relegated to the last place, to be resorted to only as the last resort, in this day of 1910, when a universal peace movement is sweeping over the world? We may not bury our dead on the battlefields, but we are bury- ing misery every day, and your people are suffering most because they need their earnings most. Let us find a way by which hereafter you may discuss the things that you think you are eirtitled to, just as we have done it here, with reason, with order, with a presiding officer in whom we have confidence, with a yielding on our part and a yielding on yours, and let us resort to the strike or the lockout only when we feel on either side that the other has asked us to surrender something which we ought not to surrender. We have been willing to go on with this strike if it were a fight for principle, because we believed that we were carrying our colors bravely and taking the conse- quences bravely. If it came to an adjustment of grievances between our employees and ourselves, we have always been willing, and I do Mr. London the credit of believing that when he discovered that I was counsel for this association that he might be sure that so far as in me lay, the ethical attitude would be taken toward this problem ; and I have insisted — perhaps I should not use that word — told my people whom I represent, that my advice is to consider the grievances of their em- ployees and try to find an equitable adjustment of them. Do not forget, gentle- men, this is not the time to find foult. I forgive and forget, but do not forget, gentlemen, that you have not the ways of diplomacy. You may have done some- thing in this situation here that makes it impossible for us to act otherwise than we did. Now, let bygones be bygones. We have got the principles of co-operation established. There is no disagreement between us. I am confident that when it comes to the legal machinery or the technical machinery or language, that Mr. London, with his legal ability, and mine, that so much as I possess, with the assis- tance of the chairman, who is far superior — may I say it, Mr. London ? MR. LONDON : Yes. MR. COHEN (continuing) : To either of us, who has had more experience in these matters than both of us combined, and who has the fairness to see our point of view, both of us will give — I feel confident that out of this room will go a docu- ment that will mark an era for you and an era for us. 123 THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Lennon. MR. LENNON : Mr. Pre.sident and gentlemen, the object to be desired, and what we all desire is that whatever agreement may be reached as to wages and as to hours and conditions of labor, that there will be a possibility of their being made effective, and after saying a few words preliminarily, I am going to state my views plainly. I want to call your attention to the fact, Mr. President and gen- tlemen, that a manufacturers’ association, in all trades, is composed of men whose opportunities and advantages, at least after they came into the business, is far su- perior to that of the men who have to work. I want to call attention to another thing, which is something of tremendous importance. A manufacturers’ associa- tion can choose their members ; we cannot. Whoever the employer hires, we have got to take into the union, good, bad, or indifferent, or whatever he may be, in or- der to protect the trade. In consequence of that, and I am not saying this as any reflection, because it is the outgrowth of the situation and nothing else — in conse- quence of that, in this industry and in the clothing industry, and in the railroad industry, in certain lines, during recent years, at any rate, the immigration from European countries and some from Asiatic countries, as soon as they reach this country, are brought into our industrial life, and the union has to make the best they can of the situation and take them in, with their prejudices and their ignorance and their lack of knowledge of American institutions, and train them as fast as they can to make good trade unionists, but, unfortunately, and I have told the peo- ple down on the East Side plainer than I can say it here — the Ghetto is in the United States as well as it is in Russia, and it has no business there. If those peo- ple could be scattered through Illinois and Iowa and Indiana and Ohio and ^Michi- gan, or some of them, at any rate, and those that have to live in New York were scattered all over the city, where they would come in touch with all races of peo- ple, those distinctive things that make it hard to deal witih this question, many of them, would disappear, but that is only an attempt to perhaps be — to deal with gen- eral questions. Now, for the specific question. This organization of cloak makers in the City of New York can only control the situation where union people are employed. They have absolutely no control of the situation where non-union people are em- ployed. They cannot enforce any rules nor any discipline of any kind, shape or description, and if we are to co-operate in a way that will be absolutely effective, then the members of the Manufacturers’ Association, after this discussion that we have had for a couple of days, it seems to me, should see that the necessary first step is that they shall run what we call union shops ; that without that there is no possibility, in so far as those particular shops are concerned, for the union to proni- i.se anything. Now, let us see. We will say that one of your establishments has twenty cutters. Fifteen or sixteen of them are union men, and four or five are non-union men. Any breach of the thing agreed upon, so far as the cutters are concerned, by the four or five non-union cutters, is not under the disciplinary power of the cutters’ organization in the slightest degree, not in the least. What is true of that branch of the trade is true of all the branches ; and let me call attention to another thing, and I am not going to appeal to the chairman for any views upon any subject, but I want to call attention to something that I know to be a fact. There is absolutely no such thing as the open shop. I say that from my observa- tion there is no such thing as an open shop. They are either union shops or they are non-union shops. In the industry with which our chairman is most familiar, just as soon as there is any one employed in the factory that is not union, the shop is a non-union shop; just that minute, and so in my trade, and so in all trades, and therefore, the impossibility of efficient co-operation. I want to see this thing set- tled in this city, and I want to see a foundation builded upon which a structure 124 can be erected, whereby the manufacturers shall be permitted in doing a legitimate business, and the manufacturers who do an illegitimate business, because of the fact that the union can secure the membership in. the small factories, and hold the membership in the small factories, if they have the example of the large ones, by forcing them to pay the same prices and live up to the same conditions, we can put the fellow out of business— to talk plain — that won’t deal on the square. But if th>'"re is not the larger factories as union factories, then the union cannot do any- thing in these small factories. I talk to you just plainly as I see the situation, and 1 do not believe you want to have me talk any other way. Now, as to one matter, and I know manufacturers fear it, and I know all classes of employers fear it, and that is what they call interference with their business. A union has no right to interfere with anything at all except that which has to do with their employment. They have no right to in any way, shape or manner interfere with the business arrangements of any institution, no matter what it is. Their right of interference ends when they protect their interests as working men, and that is as far as they have any right to go, and I believe a lesson has been taught in this city among those people, among those who are active in the organization, that if the union shop is established, that there will be no such interference, and if there is, that the labor movement of the country can very effectively and will undertake very effectively to see that it is put a stop to. Now, I say that the first step toward making co- operation effective is the union shop. MR. COHEN: iWhat do you mean by “the union shop,” Mr. Lennon? MR, LENNON : I mean that in the branches which are not excepted, and that was the designer and the foreman, if I remember right, that the emplo/yes shall all belong to the union. THE CHAIRMAN : I do not understand that Mr. Lennon is at all dis- cussing a closed shop proposition. Mr. Lennon understands that the whole proceeding here is — the whole conference proceeds upon the agreement that the closed shop shall not be one of the subjects discussed. I have assumed that what Mr. Lennon meant, and I think I am right in that assumption, from my knowledge of union — general union phraseology-^ — that he refers by a “union shop” to a shop which has reached that high degree of perfection in organization that everybody in it is a union man, and not by agreement with the employer, but as a result of those processes of persuasion that have been so effective in extending the union body. I think that that obviously is what Mr. Lennon means, because it would be a distinct breach of the terms on which our meeting and conference has proceeded, if what we commonly call the “closed shop” were a subject before us. MR. LONDON: May I say a word or two? While I yield to the con- struction put upon the remarks of Mr. Lennon by the Chairman, I would say that the subject of the closed shop can be taken up under the subject of reme- dies, if we reach the conclusion — if we reach the conclusion that there can be no remedies suggested other than the closed shop. THE CHAIRMAN : I think, Mr. London, that the subject of the closed sihop — I should rule that the subject of the closed shop could not be discussed at all, except with the absolute consent of everyone who has entered here into the conference, because it was expressly understood, and I gave my assur- ance upon m3- own understanding of the written document which I received, that that was a subject which could not be brought up, and we proceeded wholly on that. MR. LONDON : Was it your understanding, Mr. Chairman, that it could not be brought up under the subject of remedies? 125 THE CHAIRMAN : It was my understanding that it could not be dis- cussed at all. MR. LONDON: Even under the subject of remedies? THE CHAIRMAN: Under any circumstances; that it was one of the tabooed subjects, so far as this conference was concerned. Of course, it always would be within the power of any men who make an agreement to change it ; but that it was upon that express understanding. On the other hand, qf course, the subject of approaching perfection in this and in other irespects is a subject that is open, and I conceive that to be but a general step in the movement of strengthening the union, and further, like Pear’s soap, it is 99^2 per cent, pure, or whet’ner, like; some other soaps, it is only 95 per cent., is another question. That is a question of degree, but I consider the question of a closed shop an entirely different proposition from any other, and that different proposition I assume to be excluded by our agreement. I should certainly myself, and I am a party with you in that, because I acted for the unions in arranging this conference — I should consider myself pre- cluded from even discussing in conference MR. LONDON : Unless as a remedy — if we reach the conclusion that it is a remedy? THE CHAIRMAN : No. I should consider that even as a remedy it cannot be discussed here, and by virtue of the very terms, because you will remember, Mr. London, that the agreement which you had — I mean the propo- sition which authorized me to negotiate with these gentlemen on behalf of the union, and which was drawn by you, with some few suggestions from me, we undertook to set forth not only the grievances, but the remedies which we suggested, and I do not mean to say that those cannot be varied, but I should consider the closed shop, whatever be the purpose of the discussion, was a subject that cannot be brought up in fairness to anyone. MR. LONDON : That does not exclude the discussion of the question of a union shop? THE CHAIRMAN : Certainly not, because, as I say, union is merely a degree. It is an end which everybody who favors a union must long for, as we long for perfection in other things. That is, it is the attainment of your highest perfection in your process of organizing labor, and as that high per- fection, or a very high perfection is something that everybody here is agreed on, I think we can talk about reaching perfection. MR. LENNON : I am requested to ask for a few minutes’ opportunit}" for our delegates to consult. THE CHAIRMAN : I think we will adjourn, then, for luncheon, and I was going to say this, gentlemen— I want to say that I have never had the opportunity of participating in a conference on labor matters which has been conducted, on the whole, with such intelligence and fairness and considera- tion as this one. I have never had the opportunity of attending at any con- ference where I felt that the progress made in the interests of a better condi- tion of the trade, and, specifically, a better condition of the working people has advanced as rapidly as here. Now, I think both of you were right in the suggestions that there is the hope of doing something that is really great and epoch making in the movement of co-operation, and in the movement, specific- ally, of the organization of labor, as a necessary instrument toward the im- provement of the condition of labor. MR. LENNON : V/e would like to have you wait five minutes before adjourning. 126 THE CHAIRMAN : Well, we will only take a little recess. We are not going out for luncheon. We are going to stay right in this room, you ad- journing to your own room, and I was going to say, I should like to have per- haps, before we resume our work here, a little talk independently with each body, if that is agreeable. MR. COHEN : Very satisfactory. MR. LONDON; Yes. THE CHAIRMAN : I will speak first with the manufacturers, and then with you gentlemen, if I may. (A recess was taken for the purpose of affording opportunity for private conference.) (The Chairman later again called the conference to order.) THE CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen, some hours ago, as we adjourned for a bite of luncheon, I stated that I would, with the permission of both parties, have a private discussion with the representatives of the union and a private discussion with the representatives of the manufacturers, with a view to seeing whether I could possibly suggest some proper method of accomplish- ing the result which I feel all desired to accomplish; that is, of an effective co-operateion between the manufacturers and the union, which would involve, of necessity, a strong union. As I stated then, I realized that the subject of the closed shop could not be considered at this conference, but that I did believe that it was within the terms of the agreement under which we came together, and was in the desires of all, that the union should be so strength- ened that in the course of time they might ultimately have practically all, if not all, of the operatives in the shops as their members. Now, I realized, not only from a consideration of what was disclosed in this, but from a con- sideration of general union questions, that in the ordinary open shop, where that prevails, there is great difficulty in building up the union. It is done, but it is done by very great effort, and at the end of a very long time fre- quently. I felt, therefore, particularly in view of the fact that so many of the members of the Garment Workers’ Union are recent members, that to make an effective union it was necessary that you should be aided, so far as you could be properly, by the manufacturers, and it seemed to me that that aid could be effectively and properly given by providing that the manu- facturers should, in the employment of labor hereafter, give the preference to union men, where the union men were equal in efficiency to any non-union applicants. I felt that with that preference, and with the intelligent and effective work which union leaders could do, and ought to be called upon to do, that you would have the opportunity of controlling, so far as the labor end is concerned, the conduct that should come to any particular shop. Your men would be in control, and that even if it should happen that in individual shops a small percentage of other men should be in, owing to particular con- ditions, that that would not interfere with the union. Now, that was the basic idea which I had to present to the manufacturers on the one side, and to the unions on the other. It involved, of course, this as a consideration: In the first place, that the decision in regard to who was a competent person to admit and to retain in the employ must rest with the employer, just as it does in every union shop, in every closed shop; but that if anyone should be guilty of discrimination, which would mean really guilt of unfairness in deciding that question, like any other question of discrimination, it would be decided by the appropriate board, and that you would have protection in that respect. I felt, too, that so far as there might now be in the employ of individual manufacturers men who were not union members, and who 127 could not be induced lo join the union by the ordinary means of persuasion, that the manufacturers must, in duty to their own loyal help, have the oppor- tunity of keeping those men. Now, that presented in the rough what seemed to me a proper basis for coming together. I felt that that would accomplish, and probably that alone would accomplish, everything that was desired in results. I felt it would be infinitely more effective in result than a closed shop agreement entered into under the duress of a strike, and entered into, as it would be, with reservations— as many of them certainly have been — with reservations that men were going to withdraw from those agreements and evade the agreement at the first opportunity. Such an arrangement as I have proposed rests for its efficacy necessarily upon good faith. It will be effective if the employers, on the one hand — the employers’ association — and the union on the other meant to deal as honorable men with one another, with a recognition that their dealing together was dealing as allies in a gen- eral effort to improve conditions in the trade, which all of you want. Now, I am as much aware as any of you here could be that such an arrangement involves difficulties — great difficulties; but I say the difficulties are far less and the prospects of success under it are far greater than by any other arrangement v/hich I have been able to consider. I realize equally that if the manufacturers on the one hand, and the union leaders on the other hand, should approve — I mean thos*e present — should approve of such an arrangement, that it would require very considerable effort on their part to induce their associates, who have not had the benefit of conferring for days, each wfith the other here, of the wisdom, of the possibility of doing this. And while I consider that, too, to ;:>e a difficult task, I am convinced that it is a possible task, and that if you gentlemen would undertake on each side courageously to present the advantages that would be gained by such a course, it is so clearly promising, and the advance is so very great over any conditions that could be obtained in any other way, that you could educate even those who now would be bitterly opposed to any such suggestion — you can educate them to an understanding of it, and an adoption of it. I think that if such an arrangement as we have discussed can be accomplished, it wfill be the greatest advance, not only that unionism has ever made in this country, but it would be one of the greatest advances that has generally been made in improving the condition of the working man, for wdiich unionism is merely an instrument. Now, I know that this suggestion wfill be met and does run counter to the views and prejudices probably of a good many of those who are here, but I want you gentlemen not to act hastily in rejecting it, or indeed hastily in accepting it, but to consider it carefully, and to consider whether it does not, on the whole, offer an opportunity that is so great that it should not be allowed to pass. MR. COHEN: Mav I say a word, klr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cohen. MR. COHEN: The suggestion that you made, Mr. Chairman, was one that the manufacturers had difficulty in considering, and if it is to be accepted by our association, its acceptance will turn upon the question of whether or not the body of the union responds to the wise leadership that has thus far been displayed on the other side of the table. MR. LENNON : Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the conference, I want first, on behalf of our committee, to express our appreciation and regard for the Chairman and for his fairness. That expression is not necessarilv for myself, because I have knorvn Mr. Brandeis and knowm of him for a good many years. I want also to express our appreciation of the pleasant and gentle- 128 - manly way in which the discussions have been carried on. I desire to say to you that every feature that enters into this controversy has had the most careful consideration of not only the members of this committee, but of others in the organization with whom we are associated. We have spent all night and several nights, and we have spent hours in the day time giving' every phase of this matter consideration. When we received the propositions from the employers, w'hile, numerically, there were a number of the propositions that we had raised that were practically conceded to the union, the funda- mental issues, those which are of most vital importance to the people who are in this industry as workmen, as to an increase of wages and as to a reduc- tion of the hours of labor, were grievouslv disappointing to us. In fact, at least as to a part of the industry, the tender of the employers as to the weekly wage — the other wage not having been before us — that of piece workers, was not better than exists in some parts of the trade in this city now, and is not as good as exists in some portions of the country outside of New York. As to the matter of hours of labor, the proposition of the employers in this con- ference, representing their organization, is not a material change from that which now exists. The representatives of the union feel that the contest which is on in New York is fundamentally because of the fact that people who work for a living in the cloak and skirt industry want to make better wages and consequently live better, and want less hours of labor, in order that those who have a degree of experience and intelligence may have an opportunity to reach them, and impart to them somq of the greater degree of intelligence Ithat their opportunities may have given them. In the discussion of methods to carry an agreement into effect, should one be reached, we believe they are entirely inadequate to meet the situation, and that the adoption of any of the remedies proposed would leave us in a worse state than we are now, and that both sides would be grievously disappointed, and that nothing would have been accomplished except ill rather than good, and for that reason 1 am directed by the members of our part of the conference to express for them the statement that we believe the conference should now close. MR. COHEN : Before the conference closes I desire to remind Mr. Lennon that the discussion as to wages and as to hours of labor has not ter- minated; that we offered to submit that question to arbitration, and that the unions have come to us with a statement that they had no power at present to change the demands made by them. The proposition which we made is based upon a recognition of differences in classification not recognized in the statement of the union. As Mr. Lennon has pointed out, the difference in the hours is very small. We have agreed to waive the charges for electricity; we have agreed to make changes that will involve millions of dollars of differ- ence to us. I think we are fairly entitled to have the solution of the grievances discussed without iiltimatum, without final decisions. The only remedy or method thus far discussed in this conference has been the one proposed, which your Honor ruled out of the discussion, and the one suggested by yourself, which the manufacturers have been willing to consider. I apprehend, sir, that the reason for terminating this conference is not the issue of wages nor the issue of hours, but the fact that the intelligent men at this table are not confident of their ability to secure the approval of what they themselves have been willing to recognize as just and reasonable. This is a great crisis at this moment, sir, and before this conference breaks up, let me say through you to the men on the other side of the table that they take upon their shoulders a tremendous responsibility in closing this conference at this point, and that they, will have to go not only to the American people, but to every itradt 129 unionist in the country and explain why this great opportunity was lost, and they will have to explain to every humane person and every individual who is sincerely making an effort to raise the standard in this country why they let this great opportunity go by. 1 protest, sir, from the bottom cd my soul, against the termination of this conference at this point. 1 protest, sir, at that lack of courage on the part of the men on the other side of the table in not going to their people with what they know is right, and insisting upon its being carried into effect. VOICES : No, no. THE CHAIRMAN : I want to say something here myself. I think, gentle- men, that there must be some misapprehension in several matters which have been MR. DYCHE; We are being called demagogues and cowards, and I protest against it. I did not come here to be insulted by lawyers or anybody else, and I want my protest entered. THE CHAIRMAN ; That has been entered. I want, before that matter is disposed of, to say something in respect to what Mr. Lennon said, and which seemed to me to involve some misapprehension. I understood from what was said that it was the opinion of Mr. Rosenberg and others on the committee repre- senting labor, that they had no power to submit to arbitration the question of wages — of differences in wages or of what the hours of labor should be. Now, the differences in the hours of labor, I understand, consists simply in the question of whether during eight months of the year the Saturday half holiday should be allowed. It is not a question of the hours of labor, but it is a question of a Satur- day half holiday during a part of the year. MR. POLAKOFF : It is a question of four hours less a week. THE CHAIRMAN : No, it is a question of four hours on Saturday afternoon during eight months of the year. Now, the other question of the hours of labor is a question of a difference of about two dollars a week on most of the weekly rates, one dollar on some, and others two dollars a week. Now, I understand very properly that Mr. Rosenberg stated that he had no power or this committee had no power to submit that question to arbitration. I do not understand that this committee has the power, from what Mr. Lennon said at the outset, or at least would exercise the power of deciding ultimately anything, but I do understand that this committee has the power to discuss the question of wages, and I did understand, when I undertook to negotiate for a conference, that in all of the matters your committee stood ready to enter into a conference. Now, I do not — • taking this question of Jiours and of wages, while it might well be that you would not have power to take that out of your own hands and leave it to somebody else, I do not see but what you must have the power, if you care to exercise it, to dis- cuss that subject. Nobody here — certainly I have not, and I don’t know whether anybody else has — I have heard no remarks, no discussion on the one question which Mr. Lennon says is important among the grievances, namely, whether wages should be at a certain rate or whether a certain average rate, or whether there should be a half holiday on Saturdays during those six months in the year. We, therefore, have not taken up at all here that question, except that one side as to one proposition^ and the other side as to another. I do not call that a con- ference. I call that a statement of demands or suggestions, if you do not want to call it demands. Now, that, so far as that position is concerned, IMr. Lennon said that the remedies which were proposed as a means for enforcing the things on which you had agreed or might agree, including wages and hours of labor — that those remedies were insufficient. Now, I have not heard myself a discussion of the details. The only thing that I have heard has been a statement of Mr. Lnnon’s, 130 backed up by reasons, that he believed the shop should be a union shop, meaning by that that every man in it should be union ; that is the only proposition. There has been no consideration, so far as I can recall, of any of these questions as to how — whether it be a union shop or be anything else, or not a union shop, in the sense that Mr. Lennon put it — how you would proceed to secure the observance of the things agreed upon, or to proceed to punish infractions or to secure observ- ance of the various things agreed upon. I have heard of nothing in that regard ; merely on the one hand has been the statement that you wanted a union shop, and on the other, perhaps not a statement, but an implication that an agreement to that effect would not be satisfactory. MR. DYCHE; I want to say that the proposition as to preference to union men, providing that both are equal in skill — let me tell you that preference to union men has been given to men of superior skill for a long time. I have been employed with people who did not like unionism at all, but who employed me because I was a man of superior skill, and they needed me. There are lots of union men in every shop, because the employer needs them. So I do not think that that advances a step forward from where we are now. THE CHAIRMAN : Do you mean to say, Mr. Dyche, that there is no differ- ence between selecting a man — giving a man a preference because he is a union man, and giving a man a job if he is a good man, although lie is a union man ? T understood the position you referred to where you were selected was, that although you were a union man, you were given the job. I do not think that is at all sur- prising. I should be inclined to give it to you myself. MR. ROSENBERG; I wish to make it as short as I possibly can. In regard to wages there is not a difference of a dollar or two dollars, but on some parts it is a difference of about five dollars, and I also wish to state that there are gentle- men here in this room who pay now $2i and $22 a week; not individual tailors, but nearly all of the small tailors are receiving between $20 and $22 a week. Now, if this proposition should be accepted, it will merely mean to lower their v/ages, and this we can absolutely not stand. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, does it? This is a minimum wage, and not a maximum wage. MR. ROSENBERG: We believe that a good sample tailor is just as good a mechanic as a designer, and possibly much more. MR. COHEN : We are prepared to discuss all of those questions. If there be any reasons, we should be glad to hear them. We have not heard them up to this point, and the sub-committee declined to discuss these questions. MR. ROSENBERG : The reason we do not discuss this proposition is because our time is absolutely limited on the conference proposition. We had our instruc- tions from our organization — not because we are cowards or because we are dema- gogues. We are just as courageous as any men in the world. If we should be cowards we would not go to work and pull so many men out on strike or cause them to be pulled out or help them to go out on strike, but we can in no wise discuss the proposition for the arbitration of a question which I believe may be accepted by our members, but as long as I and the rest of us do not see our way clear how this will be accepted — the moment we will go before our members, they will simply be astounded. We will be thrown out of the hall. I would like to see Mr. Cohen himself go before the mass of strikers and make them this propo- sition, or any one of the manufacturers do so, or any one of our friends should go to work and do so, and then he would see the end of it. THE CHAIRMAN : I did not intend that we should have any definite solu- tion now. What I desired was, in view of this suggestion which I had worked out in its broad outline, I wanted you — I mean, not you individually, but you 131 and your associates, and Mr. Cohen with his clients and associates, to each take this matter under consideration and to see to what extent, upon calmer considera- tion, with such light as you might get, it would appear a satisfactory way out of this difficulty. I do not m.ean that either of you would have possibly inevitable all that you thought would be best, but you would have what I think would be best for all of you. But even if I were not right in that, and I am, of course, liable to be wrong as well as any of the rest of you, you would have something, and I want you, just as I have asked Mr. Cohen and his clients, to consider whether that did not offer something that was very hopeful as compared with the alterna- tive of continuing the fight with all the disaster and suffering that would be with it, and particularly, in my mind, with a setback to unionism, as I see it, which would be very serious, because it is a step, from the point of view of unionism, would be, when you take it as a practical matter, a great advantage. MR. BIZNO : I take it that Mr. Cohen probably does not quite fathom the situation. MR. COHEN : Mr. Bizno, you are the first man who has given me credit for being mistaken. I did not say that anybody on your side was a demagogue or a coward. I give you credit for possessing great courage. I said you lacked courage at this particular time. I may lack courage at some time myself. I said you need courage in this situation, and you do, men. MR. BIZNO : As far as I know you have here sitting, as far as the cloak makers are concerned, a selection of men that have had more experience in the actual practices of unions and strikes than I can think of anywhere could be selected an equal number of men all over the United States. I know Mr. Rosenberg in the movement for twenty-five years has made great sacrifices for the cause that is veiy- near to his heart. I know Mr. Polakoff, I know Dyche. I have been there for some twenty-five years. These conferences are not new to me. I have had similar conferences over and over again, as years went by. I take it also that you will agree that we know the responsibility that we are assuming in asking our friend here to read what he did read. We know that a strike is war, and nobody suffers more than our own people. You know it; we know it; it is common knowledge; no question about it, and none of its want it. Let me, Mr. Chairman, state some of the reasons why we have so decided, and we will state the same right straight — not go around — the subject matter of the union shops. I do not believe in a closed shop ; our union never did have what is really termed a closed shop. We believe in a union shop. A closed shop is a shop that nobody except a union man can get employment in. In our shop, even after agreements are made for union shops, a man who is not a member of the union comes in, and he can get a job. He stays there for some time ; sometimes it takes five weeks or so before he does become a union man, so that we do make a distinction between a union shop and a closed shop. It has been our experience, gentlemen, that an open shop was a scab shop, and we cannot evade that, and let me state to you the reasons why. I have said this to Mr. Brandeis, and I shall tell it to you, that an open shop cannot naturally be a possible union shop, or even a majority or even a minority of men to be union men. Here are two men working, suppose, for me. This man is a union man and this man is a non-union man. Usually the union man has a higher standard of living, and he asks a higher price for his labor. This other man is a non-union man ; his standard of living is lower, and he asks for less money per garment — for a piece of work. Now, according to the 'terms of the suggestion of the Chairman, you will agree to give preference to the union man, namely, you wall agree to give him more rtioney for the work and employ him than to give the non-union man less money and employ him. THE CHAIRMAN : Oh, no. 132 MR. COHEN : No. THE CHAIRMAN : That is not so. MR. BIZNO : As far as I can see, that is the question. You will prefer the union man. Now the reason why a union man is a union man at all is because his standard of living is higher, and he is struggling for a better standard. THE CHAIRMAN : I interrupt you merely because I think you are proceeding on a wrong assumption. MR. BIZNO: If you can explain it to me I shall abide by it. THE CHAIRMAN : Under this agreement, as I proposed it, nobody could get a lower rate of wages than the scale agreed upon. A VOICE : Piece workers have no scale. THE CHxA.IRMAN : Whether we were dealing with piece workers or not, when we are fixing prices that price would be precisely the same whether with a non-union man or a union man. MR. BIZNO : The nature of this industry is different than many other indus- tries you have probably looked into. Every day in the week prices for labor are being made, and every day in the week the subject matter of what it will cost is being haggled and haggled. That is the nature of the business. A new sample is brought down from upstairs, and the price is $2.00. The first man that takes it to work on feels that it is worth $3.00. Some other man — his standard is not as high — and he is willing to make it for $2.50 or for $2.25. The subject matter is being discussed among the men right then and there. The foreman who does employ them at once decides in his own mind which man he is going to get the best advantage of, and there is a union man and here is a non-union man, and he has the power to say which man shall get the bundle. THE CHAIRMAN : I see that point, but I do not see why it would not be precisely the same thing in each case you put, if there were a contest between two union men. MR. BIZNO : No. We believe that the business agent of the union and the manufacturer should decide upon the price of labor, along with the suggestions of the men, and then the manufacturer has no occasion to discriminate between the men. If they tell Mr. Rosenberg, why, here is No. 2540, and he says it is worth $2.50, somebody there says, if you want $2.50 you cannot get it ; it is too much. Then Rosenberg decides on the price of $2.00. Upstairs the manager says $1.80. We believe that the bargain for wages should be decided through a representative, and not bargaining with each individual man. The bargaining with each individual man reduces the conditions to non-union, and you cannot get around it. THE CHAIRMAN : That is another question entirely. MR. BIZNO: Now, if Rosenberg will go up, Mr. Chairman, and will be bargaining for a union and a non-union man, in the case of the union man he says to him : “Do not hit your brother below the belt ; do not reduce the price so that you could not make a living” ; but a non-union man, he will not be able to say anything to him. The non-union man will decide on the price of the labor for all the rest. IMr. President, our people have been suffering in this town from the low prices of labor and the low standards, and we mean to improve/ that, and your suggestion, IMr. President, that we can improve that by nice phrases, purely ideal conceptions of ethics, etc., has not been working well in the history of the trade. The only improvements that have been made have been made by this very sacrifice that is now being maintained in New York — strikes, Mr. President, organizations. A man will be better satisfied to starve than to work for wages that he cannot make a living on. THE CHAIRMAN : How long? 133 MR. BIZNO : Oh, quite a long time. There were cases where some of our men have beeen starving for fourteen weeks, and I have seen fathers who per- mitted their children to starve to death rather than to give up the struggle. This has been an old struggle. We haven’t any bad blood, Mr. President. THE CHAIRMAN : I understand. MR. BIZNO ; But we have a hard history. THE CHAIRMAN : I do not think there is any bad blood. I think your statement and those of others have been most deliberate, and with the proper conception of the seriousness of the situation. I am only asking this for informa- tion. You have told me about experiences in the past. I should like to know whether there has been any instance or series of instances in your twenty-five years of experience where you have had introduced into the trade with the Manufac- turers' Association on the one hand and the unions on the other, an agreement by which the union should have preference in the selection of employees? Has there been any instance, and if so, will you please tell us by name the instances where such agreements were entered into. MR. BIZNO: Mr. President, we have had for a number of years agreements with the manufacturers of Chicago wherein they agreed to employ union men, to have union shops ; where the price for labor was decided between the manufacturer and the business agent of the unions, together with the consultation of the men, where the thing has worked for years without strikes ; where the lot in life has l)een inaterially improved, and where we have abolished sweatshops, long hours of work and strikes. THE CHAIRMAN ; That does not answer my question. It is a very inter- esting statement, and I am glad to hear it. MR. BIZNO: As to that, we can get copies of the contracts; we cannot bring the witnesses here. THE CHAIRMAN : I am not doubting. I am very glad to hear it, but the specific thing that I asked was this : You said from your experience that what you termed open shops, that you were convinced that the preferential plan would not work. Now, what I want to ask yo uis whether you know of any instance where the preferential plan was ever tried ? I merely ask you that in order to see whether you speak from experience. MR. BIZNO : Let me answer that in another experience. You remember we have had agreements with some of the manufacturers by which we have agreed that the manufacturer should have a certain number of outside shops ; that everybody must belong to the union, with a certain number of outside shops in which every- body is not obliged to belong to the union. He can if he wants to. That it is the business of the manufacturer first to send his work into the union shops, and after the union ships are employed he may send his work to those shops that are not all union or partly union. THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. That is a very different thing. MR. BIZNO : That is, in theory, substantially the same. THE CHAIRMAN : Oh, no ; not at all. MR. BIZNO : That is in theory the same, and it has not worked well. It has worked very bad. THE CHAIRMAN : I should think it would work very badly, because there is competition between union and non-union shops, but what I asked was for any case where you had an agreement for giving preference to union men. MR. BIZNO: Not that I know of. THE CHAIRMAN : That is what I thought, that that had never been tried in the garment trade. 134 MR. SCHLESSINGER; Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to you and Mr. Cohen, and also to Mr. London, and with all due respect to you and your profession, I must say that you know very little about tailoring. We know a good deal of how to conduct strikes, and we also know a good deal about tailoring. I do not know if I will succeed in making you good tailors in the few words 1 am going to speak to you, but I expect to convince some of the gentlemen of the com- mittee here that I am right in some of my contentions, what I am going to say now. As far as wages are concerned, rather, as far as your proposition as to the wages is concerned, why, you know it is ridiculous. MR. LONDON : You do not address that to the Chairman? MR. SCHLESSINGER: No, not to the Chairman. As far as the prices are concerned, we demand $24.00 a week for sample tailors. They are getting $22.00 a week, and in a very few shops, I must confess, $23.00 a week, and you offer us $19.00 a week, so of course, you will admit it is ridiculous. We will certainly not accept $19.00 a week when we have been getting $22.00, and when we are getting, although in a few shops, $23.00 a week. MR. COHEN : May I ask you a question? MR. SCHLESSINGER: Oh, my. Then I would not make a speech then. THE CHAIRMAN : You have the floor. MR. SCHLESSINGER : Go ahead. ' MR. COHEN : I am concerned with getting practical results. Now, as the Chairman has very well pointed ouj;, you made a proposition as to wages. We made a proposition. Yours is the first attempt to discuss these questions of wages. Now, I think that a discussion of wages of that sort can better be had in a sub- committee than in this large gathering. Now, it is not fair to say that our propo- sition is ridiculous ; that does not answer the question. We can say the same thing of yours, but we are prepared, Mr. Scblessinger, in the event that the sub- committee cannot agree, to submit the entire question of wages to arbitration and to select, if you do not want Mr. Brandeis, some one else. Now, why not adjourn this conference until that can be done, and present all of the arguments that ought to be presented, that you think are in favor of your proposition, but do not do it as an ultimatum to which we must either accede or the conference must break up? That is not a conference, Mr. Schlessinger. MR. SCHLESSINGER: Your j^roposition, as far as wages is concerned — your wage scale, we cannot consider it at all. MR. COHEN : All right. MR. SCHLESSINGER: We ask for $24.00 a week. That is, we have taken the maximum that was paid in the line of sample tailoring, and we wanted to raise $i.ooi on it. You have taken the minimum, that is $22.00 a week, or possibly $21.00 a week, and you offer us less here than the minimum. Don’t you consider that ridiculous? MR. COHEN : There are fourteen classifications in your list. Now MR. SCHLESSINGER: I am speaking of the sample tailor. I ask you if it is not ridiculous to offer us $19.00 a week for such work as we have been getting $23.00? THE CHAIRMAN : Let me ask you one question before he answers that. Do you mean to say that there is nobody in the trades who to-day is paying less than $19.00? Is that what your statement is? MR. FISHMAN : May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I pay $15.00 a week. ]\IR. POLAKOFF : It is a shame, if he pays $15.00 a week. MR SCHLESSINGER: Mr. Fishman is perfectly right. I believe be pays $15.00 a wee.k I know a cloak factory in New York where 15 cents is paid for 135 two duck jackets to operate, and I am sure there is not a man here in this room that will pay such a low price as that. THE CHAIRMAN : What I want to know is this : Now you made the statement that $19.00 was $2.00 less than was being paid, and therefore it was absurd to consider $19.00. Now, what I wanted to know was whether that was $2.00 less than one man or two men or ten men or a hundred men were paying, or whether that was the least that was being paid in the trade, and whether you could tell us how many men were paying one price and how many another. MR. SCHLESSINGER ; 1 should say that about seventy per cent, of the sample makers in New York are getting on an average of $21.00 a week — seventy per cent, of them. MR. COHEN: I will let you get your speech off afterwards, but first of all answ^er some questions. You want to be fair about this thing, don’t you? THE CHAIRMAN : He certainly does. There is no question about that. MR. COHEN: Nowq if you are right that the average price at present is so much — what did you say it was? A VOICE: $21.00. MR. COHEN : Then I accept your statement that the offer of $19.00 is not an advantage to you. MR. SCHLESSINGER: I want you to admit it is ridiculous.' MR. COHEN : Never mind whether it is ridiculous or not. Ridiculous is a big word. MR. SCHLESSINGER: You used very big words this afternoon. MR. COHEN: No, I didn’t use anything offensive. You are too sensi- tive, that is the trouble with you. Our people on our side of the table say that you are mistaken in your statement of facts. They do not say you are deliberately misrepresenting. They ought to know what they are talking about. When we have a dispute about a question of fact w^e do not break up a conference on account of it, but w'e try to find out what the facts are. If the facts are as you say, it should be easy to prove them, and we are willing to go before any unbiased tribunal and let you prove your facts, and I assure you that if you prove them to be facts I will be the first one to urge the adoption of the scale that you want. Further than that, you can have our own books, if you please, for the purpose of. proving what our people pay sample makers, and we will give you the accountants and pay for the ac- countants for the purpose of showing statistically MR. SCHLESSINGER: What is the use of that? MR. COHEN : Because we are here as fair men. MR. SCHLESSINGER: But really the speechmaking here would not amount to anything. I would be only too glad if Mr. Jonasson or any other gentleman here would ask me this. I was glad to hear something about Mr. Fishman. After all, I cannot undertake to learn you about the business. You start off as a lawyer, asking questions, and I cannot stand it really. There are manufacturers in this room, Mr. Cohen, that are paying $22.00 and $23.00 a week for sample makers, and I do not want to take you to manufacturers who are paying 15 cents for two garments. You know what I mean by that. I do not want to take you to manufacturers that are paying below the living scale — that are not paying a living wage. I rather take you to manufacturers that are in this room that are paying $22.00 and $23,000 to sample hands. A VOICE: Will you take the average of manufacturers in this room? MR. SCHLESSINGER: I don’t know. MR. COHEN: Will }'ou try it? 136 MR. SCHLESSINGER: No, I don’t want to. I was requested not to mention names. MR. COHEN: But they are willing now. MR. SCHLESSINGER: But I am not willing now. MR. COHEN: ,Why? MR. SCHLESSINGER: Because I do not want to. I do not consider this a court. We are in a room in the Metropolitan Life Building, with a committee of the Manufacturers’ Association, people engaged in making cloaks and people of the union — a union composed of the people making the cloaks, and we are discussing certain regulations of the trade — how to regu- late the trade, etc., so I do not want to discuss your wage proposition, as I really think he was not in earnest about it and did not know much about it. I will not take that up now. I will leave that for others. I want to say a few words about the kind of shops you would like us to work in, and I want to show you that it will not work to your advantage, as it will not work to our advantage. I would not say that a shop like the one you suggest will work to the breaking up of our union; I would not say that, because I have seen unions under much worse circumstances — rather in shops with much worse condi- tions, but I claim it would work to the detriment of your business. It would break up the business of a good many manufacturers in this room, and I will show you why. Now, you agree that in order to regulate the trade in order to abolish unfair competition that there must be co-operation between the manufacturers and also the union. That is, they must work to a certain ex- tent hand in hand. We, for instance, are to see that our people do not work for lower wages in other shops than they are getting in your place, and you, of course, are to assist as and see that we are able to carry through our point. Now, for instance, if we go to work under the conditions that you propose to us, to work with non-union mxcn — now, say we will take Mr. A, has a shop, and he has six union men working in this place and four non-union men. Now, of course, you will have to pay the non-union men the very same prices and you will have to give them the very same conditions that you are giving the union men. If not, of course, he will join the union, and then you will have to pay him, and there is no doubt about it, and I am quite sure that the manu- facturers will not try to take any advantage of the non-union man. As a matter of fact I rather believe they will try to take advantage of the union man. This is human nature. If I had been a manufacturer I would have done the same thing — don’t put that in. I am not criticising you. You will certainly see that a non-union man gets the very same wages that a union man gets, so what will be the result ? The union man will see that there is a non-union man working in the same shop where he works, men that do not pay any dues in the organization and gets the very same conditions and gets the same prices that a union man gets; then, of course, he will decide also to drop the organization. You understand me, don’t you? That the union man will see that the non-union man gets the very same conditions and very same prices for his labor that a union man gets; then the union man will decide also to drop out of the organization, and as a matter of fact the manufacturer will encourage him. He is only looking for such a thing. As soon as our mem- bers have deserted us, then it is absolutely impossible for us to control the trade or equalize conditions. If the members of our union desert the union in your shops, they will desert the union in other shops, consequently the same unfair competition that has been going on until now will be going on in the future. 13,7 MR. COHEN: Just to make me clear on the subject, you say that the sane way to carry out the reforms that we have been discussing here is by employing none but union men in our shops? MR. SCHLESSINGER: I will come to it. I did not say it yet. I am go- ing to say it now. I say the only remedy for the manufacturers is to employ none but union men, as long as the union is able to supply you with help. Should it be impossible for the union to supply you with help — the union not have as many members as you are able to employ, then you should have the privilege to employ whoever you please. MR. LONDON: You mean competent men at the work? MR SCHLESSINGER: Competent men, yes; that is understood. We are talking of mechanics. MR. COHEN : That is the Chairman’s proposition. MR. SCHLESSINGER: If that is so, all right. I will put it as my propo- sition. I want to get the credit for it, with your consent, Mr. Chairman. My proposition is that the manufacturers do not employ none others than members of the organization as long as the union is able to supply them with as much help as they need. There is no reason why you should not, as long as you will agree on prices and on all regulations in the shops — then I really do not see why you should not employ only union men. Now, you know, Mr. Lefcourt, that if }^ou will have sixty union men in your shop and forty non-union men, that there will be a continuous quarrel among the people there; either the union men will drive the non-union men out or the non-union men will drive the union men out, but before one party will drive out the other you will not be able to make your work. MR. LONDON: You will be driven out of business. MR. SCHLESSINGER: I will not say that. I do not want to threaten them. I know the petiple in the shops. I worked 17 years in the shops as an operator. That is fhe reason I say I am able to talk to you on this ques- tion. I can give you some information on this question that you probably do not know, because you have foremen and you are not familiar with every- thing that goes on in the shops. The employment of union men only is the only proposition that can be accepted by our organization. Should we accept your proposition that is. having non-union men working hand in hand with us, then we will lose our organization, as every organization has lost that went into deals like you are trying to make us go into. So I therefore say that I do not think it will be possible for me to make such a strong appeal as IMr. Cohen, but I expect Mr. London to do it, because I consider this present min- ute a very serious one. I tell you manufacturers to consider it. We will keep up this strike, whether we like it or not; whether it will do us good or not. We haveTo; we will. Not because we are cowards, Mr. Cohen MR. COHEN: Just a moment. Let me set you right. My point was simply this, and I want all of you gentlemen to understand it. I have learned to entertain a high respect for the men who sit around this table, but you are dealing with a crisis with your own people which requires tremendous cour- age on your part, and it did not seem to me that by asking for a termination of this conference that vou were quite measuring up to the standard of courage that the situation requires. That is my only criticism. MR. SCHLESSINGER: The very same thing can also be said about your manufacturers. You have in New York about 1,200 or 1,300 manufacturers. You haven’t all of them in your union. By reason of them not being in your union or your association it is also the case that you cannot control them. Now, this minute is a very serious one, I admit. If we do not agree now, of 138 course, we will have to keep up the strike, and we cannot tell how long. We will have to strike. We cannot tell how long it will take us to make you people come to our terms, or we cannot tell how long it will take you people to make us come to your terms, but let me tell you, as sure as I am born, that if our union fails in its present effort, then it would not take very long before a good many of the very small ones will drive you people out of business, as they did drive out a good many large manufacturers out of business i6 years ago when we had that strike. At that time, gentlemen, we also lost our strike. Some of you remember it. At that time Mr. Jonasson — not this Mr. Jonasson — a good many others were driven out of business. We lost that strike, but the result was nevertheless that the manufacturers had lost. Most of the people that were striking against you then and have lost that strike are manufacturers to-day. I would not be surprised if you would tell me that some of the people here who are manufacturers now, conferring here,, were strikers in 1894. We are certainly going to keep it up and make such a fight as we never made before. I do not want to appeal to you, because I do not think an appeal will help, birt I simply want to appeal to your senses as business men. Do not lose your birsiness. You have worked hard to work it up. There are people just waiting for it. They are just waiting that this strike should be prolonged. Judging by past experiences^ and you know that what I tell you is absolutely so, and if you have not considered tliese things yet — that is, if you have never talked over the things that have hap- pened in our trade, it would be worth while for you to do it now before we leave this room. If we leave this room now, it means that the strike will go on. Mr. Cohen and Mr. London and Mr. Brandeis are attorneys. They all did the best they could in this matter, but it is up to you manufacturers to do the right thing. Mr. Cohen thinks it is possible for union men to work alongside of non-union men, but you know it is impossible. You know you will have fights in your shops. I simply want you to consider it and act fairly, that you will come into the proposition as I have stated it, that none others but union men be permitted to work in your shops, as long as the union is able to supply you with competent help. THE CHAIRMAN; Equally competent help. MR. SCHLESSINGER: Yes, equally competent help. When the union cannot supply you with help, of course you can employ whoever you please. That is my proposition — my sincere proposition. MR. BLOCH; I will not possibly take up half the time that Mr. Schles- singer did, and I am not going to criticise our friend Mr. Cohen there. I want to say this. At the outset of this conference I understood that the con- ference was to bring about some amicable understanding in regard to equaliz- ing conditions, and the question before us now is the method of enforcing any agreement that may be reached at this conference. I further want to say, Mr. Chairman; that I believe that the outcome of this conference will be the standard that will be established among our trade, amongst employers and employees both. We realize that the employment of non-union men in the shops will naturally be the unfair competition that we have had to con- tend with, for this reason. A non-union man will work in the shops of you gentlemen here, and when the season is over and they are laid off they will go down to other shops that are not in your association or under our control, and possibly work under the unfair conditions we are trying to prevent — less money, longer hours and so on. If they are union men and in your emplo)' we can naturally control them and prevent them from working for these other people under unfair conditions. Of course, we understand that the stand 139 that you gentlemen have taken is one you believe is principle with you. I do not agree with you on that either. That you believe that by recognizing the union demands, that ad union men be employed in your establishment, would mean the control of your shops by the union. Now, we have promised you, and I am ready to promise you, that it does not mean anything of the kind. I know that the mere fact that unionism at times seems to some employers a little bit unwise to adopt in their factories, such a thing as unionizing their entire plant — still I believe that in bringing about an equalization of conditions we have got to control the employees, and the only way they can possibly be controlled is through their organizations, properly by discipline and so on. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that to carry out any agreement that may be reached at this conference, and carry it out honestly, because it would be ridiculous on our part to say that we were going to attempt to carry out something that we know at the outset that we cannot carry out — that the only proper course to pursue in that instance would be for the Manufacturers’ Association to adopt suitable amendments or declarations empowering them to employ union men solely in their shops. THE CAHIRMAN:. I do not know just what you have definitely in mind, but you are, of course, aware that the closed shop cannot be discussed here. MR. BLOCH: We are not discussing the closed or open shop at this-time. A VOICE: I would like to know what else is being done. MR. BLOCH: A union shop is not a closed shop in my opinion. I be- lieve it is for the the protection of the manufacturers, as well as for the mem- bers of our union themselves to have men in their employ who are controlled and disciplined by their organizations. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. London, I think you had something to saV. MR. LONDON: I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that I realize the im- portance of the questions which we are discussing — which we have been dis- cussing for the last three days, and I share with Mr. Cohen the sentiments that we have approached a crisis. I think that if the employers will realize the situation as it is, [hey will not ask of us the impossibility; that they will take our men as they are. We are not responsible for them. We cannot change them. To some extent we say that some of the employers have some blame for the conditions — for the physical, moral and intellectual conditions of some of our people. We are not responsible for the low conditions in which some of the people in the trade are to-day. We are trying to improve these conditions. Nov/, if you were to consent to employ union men as long as you can get competent union men, why, then, the question is settled. That is all there is to it. There is no use appealing. You are not a crowd of t>ld women who can be appealed to by a sermon. It is a question of reasoning the thing out. Now, let us try to reason the thing out. We have 60,000 men or perhaps men and women on strike. They are on strike because they feel there is something wrong; they want some change; some of them joined the union two months before the strike was called, some of them three months before the strike was called, some of them were so calculating in their unionism that they paid the initiation fee in order to go on strike and in order to get immediate benefit for the dollar or three dollars that they paid in. We have practical people among us. Now you have to take those men and women as they are. The labor leader has not yet been born who can take this mass and discipline it and tell to this mass “you must act according to this line, according to these directions, according to the suggestion I make to you at this moment.” You cannot do it in twenty-four hours; you cannot do it in forty-eight hours. These men say that they understand the words “union shop,” and let 140 me tell you an incident which is as tragical as it is humorous, when they use the expression "recognition of the union,” which to the ; American trade unionist means the negotiating with the officers of the union — when they speak of the recognition of the union, they mean absolutely the closed shop. Now, we speak to them of the union shops, and realize that you should have the right to employ non-union men when it is impossible for you to get com- petent union help. Be practicable; be sensible. THE CHAIRJMAN : You mean “equally eompetent” individuals? You may get them competent, yet there may be a great difference in their com- petency. MR. LONDON : I bow with reverence to your great command of the English language, but the difficulty is this : If you will attempt to draw fine distinctions in any paper you will submit to our people, the more refined is the distinction the less will they understand it, and think they will be deceived, and therefore I ask you to strike out the word “equally.” THE CHAIRM AN : No. It is a question of using language which you and I and Mr. Cohen and twenty other gentlemqn here who are patiently listening to us can understand. I can perfectly well conceive that you may have ten or fifteen or twenty persons, all of whom are declared competent, and yet if I had to choose a tailor or a lawyer or a physician, I would be able to draw a distinction between the competency of the one and the competency of the otheir. Now, the variation might not be as great in tailors as it would be in physicians, but there must be the liberty of choice of the men to select the best they can get. Otherwise the trade cannot advance. MR. LONDON; I should say in reply that the word “competency” will necessarily mean that. It will mean that the employer is at liberty to^ employ a non-union man as long as the union is unable to furnish him with a man competent to do the work required. As soon as you put in the word “equally” you introduce two elements ; you introduce the non-union man along with the union man. You have to take our people as they are. Because our people have not been as well organized as they should have been, you should not declare in favor of continuing the strike. It is up to you. You are the strike leaders to-day. You are the organizers and the agitators. Mr. Jonasson, do you like that part? Do you want 60,000 men to stay out for five or six weeks? I know they have been used to staving, but still there is a limit. They have become accustomed to privation and starving. They may not endure very long; they may endure four or five or six weeks. Imagine the results. What will be the effect upon the trade? We have jus't now settled with 450 manufacturers — some substantial ones and quite a number of small manufacturers. If the union exists we will, in these 450 factories, in which the conditions have been more or less disgraceful, improve things. MR. FISHMAN : I want to say this, that those manufacturers, some of them which signed, will not live up to the union agreement. MR. LONDON: If the union will live we will make every reasonable effort in the world that the manufacturers with whom we have settled should live up to the standard. As you see, we have been reasonable. When you came in with a proposition to abolish electricity and to install electricity, we said: “We will give you to the ist of December, so that the season may expire” — the best time. Some of our men may consider that to some extent a defeat ; one of our most important demands. I ask you to be reasonable. I ask you not to continue the strike. I ask you in the name of the 450 manu- facturers with whom we have settled and the 800 manufacturers outside of 141 your association, to consider this situation again — for your sakes, for Mr. Brandeis’ sake, and for everybody else. MR. DYCHE: Mr. Chairman, the reason why I cannot admit that the plan suggested by the Chairman — the preferential plan — will be one that will maintain our organization and enable us to keep up the conditions for which we are struggling is this — is based on experience and not theory. I have had experience with union shops and non-union shops for a numbet of years. THE CHAIRMAN : Let me ask you whether you ever had any experience with a shop in which preference was given along the lines which you have suggested? MR. DYCHE: No. THE CHAIRMAN: You never had? MR. DYCHE: No. But I will tell you what I do know, and that is this: That the same as a bad coin drives a good coin out of the market, so does non-union men drive union men out of the shop. I have seen it as soon as noti-union labor has been introduced in a union shop, that there has been a stampede took place. THE CHAIRMAN : Not where there was an agreement that the union men should have preference, was it? MR. DYCHE: Yes, it was an greement that union men should be solely employed. THE CHAIRMAN : Not preferentially? MR. DYCHE: Not preferentially, but on this basis. The fact is this: With those two elements, it is not a question of how the arrangement has been drawn. I have found this, and I have told my people that the question is very often not how the agreement had been drawn up, but the question of the temperament and disposition of the people we have to deal with. No amount of agreements or no document, however finely devised, will change at once — it may in time, but not now — the nature of our people. As I tell you, a stampede took place, and either the men would leave the union or the union would leave the shop, and a week or two passed and the shop turned non-union. For the sake of self-protection you would be committing suicide to go into an agree- ment where such a condition prevailed. Give us a chance for a half a year, and let us see if we can make, good. THjE CHAIRMAN : That is what ive say. MR. DYCHE: But I have no faith in it, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN : I have no faith in yours. MR. DYCHE: It is something too new. It cannot be done at this crisis. THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Greenberger says that he is ready to proceed with his remarks, and we are anxious to hear them. MR. GREENBERGER: I am satisfied for Mr. London to address you. MR. LONDON : If the other side is willing to adjourn and come together to-night, why, I think we shall continue the conference ; at least, I w’ould advise my side so to do. THE CHAIRMx\N : At what hour would you suggest? It is now twenty minutes past six. MR. LONDON : One of the important reasons for our anxiety to end the conference is that with the continuing of this conference we lose oppor- tunity of sending daily from 1,500 to 1,200 people back to work. Settlements have been proceeding along these lines, along union lines. We had ^rom sixty to seventy-five settlements a day. Now, since this conference has been made public the number of settlements fell off, and a number of employers told us frankly that they were awaiting the result of this conference. Under 142 the circumstances it becomes unjust to the men who are in a position to return to work under union conditions to continue this conference indefinitely, and that is why I would ask the gentlemen on the other side of the table to work overtime in the month of August or July to-night. A VOICE: That is against union principles. THE CHAIRMAN : I want to make this suggestion before that question is considered. We have been in continuous session here since ten o’clock this morning, without even the usual recess for luncheon. MR. SCHLE.SSLNQER : Oh, we had lunch. THE CHAIRMAN : We had lunch, but the others were working while one man was eating, and I tliink most of the gentlemen, including your own delegates, were working before our conference began, and were working late last night and into the morning, many of you. Now, the o,ne thing that all of us need in the consideration of what is the most important question in the lives of all of these men, and all trade unionism generally, is to deal with the subject calmly, with the best judgment that we can get, and I think that it is in a way dangerous to proceed with the decision of a very important question when so many men are probably exhausted by the consideration they have been giving to it. I feel quite sure that Mr. Cohen and you and I, who are more accustomed to matters of this kind and to heavy drafts upon us for such consideration, than other gentlemen, the manufacturers particularly — would be better able to stand the strain than others, and I personally am entirely ready to meet at any tiiue for a further conference, but I do not think it is wise that we should do it, and I think these incidental disadvantages of which you have spoken, and I have no doubt that the manufacturers have disadvan- tages that they could call attention to, equally serious from their standpoint — I think they ought to yield to the better judgment and not try to cut off a conference when there is hope and as long as there is hope for consideration. Now, I do not want to drag it on. I am perhaps the last person who should want to drag it on, but I think we ought to consider it wihen we are calm and when we have our best wits about us that we are capable of. 'MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, when we first considered the question of this conference I said a solution when men were tired was not a solution that could be relied upon, of serious difficulties. It is quite evident from what Mr. London has said that the gentlemen on the other side of the table have had very little sleep or rest, and the stenographer assures, me that he has not had ,more than three hours sleep in the last couple of nights, getting out our minutes. Now, there is an intervening Sunday, and Sunday is a day lor reflection and rest. We have taken our position. We took it before we came into this conference. Apparently it has not been thoroughly understood; apparently the basis of the conference itself was not thoroughly understood by all of the people who are represented here. I think this conference should adjourn until Monday morning, and I think on Monday morning it would be wise if Mr. London and the Chairman and myself wmuld meet, say, at ten o’clock and make one final effort with our joint brains to see if we can devise some scheme, that, recognizing the principles we stand for, and recognizing the principles that the union stands for, will w’-ork out a solution of these difficulties. THE CHAIRMAN : I suppose if it is preferable, Mr. London, that you would not object to meeting at an earlier hour Monday? MR. COHEN : I want to have opportunity for conferring with my people, and I will not have that this evening, and I expect to have it Monday morning. 143 THE CHAIRMAN : That seems to me a reasonable suggestion. It is one. to which 1 would accomodate myself. MR. SCHLESSINGER : Please allow us just a few moments for priv^ate conference. THE CHAIRMAN : Certainly. (The Union Committee then retired.) MR. LONDON : Mr. Schlessinger wants a conference between the employers and the employees, without the intervention of counsel. MR. COHEN : On Monday ? MR. LONDON : Perhaps so. MR. COHEN; And without the Chairman? MR. LONDON ; Perhaps so. They want a meeting of business men ; that is all. MIR. COHEN : We will do it if Mr. Brandeis presides, because we have got to have somebody to preserve order. (The Union Committee returned to the conference room.) MR. LENNON : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it is the wish of our committee that this conference do now adjourn, and that Mr. Cohen and Mr. Brandeis and Mr. London meet and endeavor to work out a solution of this matter and submit it to both sides in writing, and we believe that we can do something with it, and then meet again. MR. COHEN : I will agree to meet Mr. London Monday morning, and Mr. Brandeis, after we have had some rest at any time — say, ten o’clock. THE CHAIRMAN: Ten o’clock and where? Here? MR. COHEN ; We might as well stay here. Whereupon, the conference adjourned until Monday morning, August i, 1910, at 10 o’clock A. M., at the same place. 144 MINUTES OF SESSION, AUGUST i, 1910. Room 5208, Metropolitan Life Insurance Building, New York City, August i, 191C. Met pursuant to adjournment. Mr. Cohen submitted to Mr. London and to Mr. Brandeis the following letter : — PROPOSAL BY MR. COHEN TO MR. LONDON. New York, Aug. 1, 1910. Meyer London, Esq., Counsel for the Cloak and Suit Makers’ Union. Dear Mr. London — Our conference this morning is fraught with such grave conse- quences that I believe such matters as I have to submit should be reduced to writing. I am prepared to join with you in recommending to our respective organizations the following as their joint understanding of the relations between the two, to be agreed upon: The conference has developed that the grievances complained of by the Union can be adjusted. Practically every subject has been agreed upon, save that of wages and the year-round-Saturday half-holiday (instead of during the four summer months), both of which matters the manufacturers are willing to leave to arbitration. A Joint Board of San- itary Control, composed of representatives of the Association and the Union and the public, will be formed, whose business it will be to establish standards of sanitary conditions, to in- vestigate as to the observance of these conditions, and both parties to the conference agree to exercise their powers to the fullest to enforce these standards. The manufacturers realize that to establish a standard of sanitary conditions, and standards of wages and hours throughout the industry it is important that there should be complete co-operation between their Association and the Union. They are, therefore, ready to strengthen the Union, if it be but well organized and wisely led. If a complete agreement be now reached upon these difficult and delicate matters it will at once establish confidence between the lead of both sides. The manufacturers cannot, of course, surrender the control and management of their factories to the Union. In agreeing to this declaration, the Union indicates that it assents. The manufacturers cannot coerce any one into joining the Union; to this the Union assents. The manufacturers cannot supervise the Union’s business. The Union does not ask that they should. But the manufacturers can let it be known that they are in sympathy with the Union, and that as between a Union man and a non-union man of equal ability to do the job, they will employ the Union man. They cannot ask each man seeking a job to show his Union card, nor agree to collect the Union dues. On the other hand, they can and will (if this declaration be accepted) announce to all of their employees that they believe in the Union and that all who desire its benefits should share in its burdens. In signing this declaration, the Union does not seek the “closed shop’’ as it is under- stood by the manufacturers. They seek the “union shop” by which they mean, a shop where the majority of the men employed are Union men, and where the employer is known to be in sympathy with the Union. It is not intended that the employer shall not be free to pick and choose his workers. But it is intended that if in bad faith, he discriminates against Union men or fails honestly to give preference to Union men, then he is not conducting a “Lffiion shop,” both parties agree. It is done experimentally, for it has never before been tried in this or any other industry. But the manufacturers believe modern conditions just- ify recognition of a well organized and disciplined union to this extent and that with good faith and wise leadership on both sides, cooperation between the two organizations can bring the industry to a higher position than it occupies even at present. 145 On the other hand, the Union recognizes that it cannot hope to accomplish this great social result unless it helps to drive out of the industry the sweatshop “boss,” the tenement house worker and the unscrupulous manufacturer. A joint board of arbitration will be established, upon which representatives of the public will be present. No future strikes or lock-outs will take place until grievances are first submitted to arbitration. In the saving of the great waste thus eliminated both parties expect to gain much. I am aware in submitting this proposed agreement, it is fraught with great danger and that if accepted by my people, it goes “the limit.” On the other hand I see nothing more that can be asked except the “closed shop” which, as you know, was eliminated before we went into conference. Please be good enough to give me your answer in writing by two o’clock today. Yours respectfully, (Signed) Julius Henry Cohen, Counsel Manufacturers’ Association. Mr. Brandeis then submitted to Mr. Cohen the following letter : — New York, Aug. i, 1910. Julius Henry Cohen, Esq. Dear Sir : Before submitting your letter of this day to Mr. London, after con- ferring with both you and Mr. London, I suggest that you modify the proposed declaration in the following respect; — First. Let the clause in the last paragraph on the first page, beginning with “But the manufacturers” read : “But the manufacturers can and will declare in appropriate terms their sympathy with the Union, their desire to aid and strengthen the Union, and their agreement that as between Lmion men and non-Union men of equal ability to do the job, they will employ the Union men.” Second. Add to the second line of the second page : “And that the preference will be given to Union men.” Third. Insert after the above : “The Union pledges itself to accept into its membership every applicant of good character on equal terms and keeps its initia- tion fees and dues at a reasonable rate.” Fourth. Substitute for the second sentence of the first paragraph beginning on page two, “The majority,” etc., the following: “They seek the Union shop, by which they mean a shop in which Union standards prevail and the Union man is entitled to the preference.” With these changes I am prepared to join with you in recommending the accept- ance of the proposal. Very truly yours, (Signed) LOUIS D. BRANDEIS. 146 MODIFICATION BY MR. BRANDEIS. New York, Aug. 1, 1910. Julius Henry Cohen, Esq. Dear Sir — Before submitting your letter of this day to Mr. London, after conferring with both you and Mr. London, I suggest that you modify the proposed declaration in the following respect : First. Let the clause in the last paragraph on the first page, beginning with “but the manufacturers,” read : “But the manufacturers can and will declare in appropriate terms their sympathy with the union, their desire to aid and strengthen the union, and their .agree- ment that as between union men and non-union men of equal ability to do the job, they will employ the union men.” Second. Add to the second line of the second page : “And that the preference will be given to union men.” Third. Insert after the above : “The union pledges itself to accept into its membership every applicant of good character on equal terms and keep its initiation fees and dues at a reasonable rate.” Fourth. Substitute for the second sentence of the first paragraph beginning on page 2 “the majority, etc.,” the following: “They seek the union shop, by ’which means they mean a shop in which union standards prevail and the union man is entitled to the preference.” With these changes I am prepared to join with you in recommending the acceptance of the proposal. Very truly yours, (Signed) Louis D. Brandeis. And Mr. Cohen wrote at the foot thereof : Dear Mr. Brandeis — I accept your modifications. (Signed) Julius Henry Cohen. 147 EDITORIAL N. Y. TIMES, AUG. 2. 1910. LABORS “UPLIFT” MOVEMENT. A few days ago the General Committee of the Garment Workers’ strikers made a formal appeal for public support in these words: “We want the sympathy and help of all fair-minded men and women. Onr cause is that of human uplift, and if the manufacturers want to assume the position of opponents to this cause we are not responsible. We appeal our case to the American people, knowing that justice and right must and shall prevail.” The interpretation of these fair words was published yesterday in the foilwing state- ment of the result of the negotiations up to date by the President of the strikers’ union: The conference on Saturday ended, however, when we saw we could come to no conclusion on the subject of unionism. The manufacturers wanted to permit non- union men to work if they were competent. We asked how we could keep up union conditions in the factories if there was an element we could not control. In this case, therefore, the “uplift” of labor means the exclusion of all but unionists from the privilege of earning wages. It is impossible for any who are human to with- hold sympathy for any sincere movement in promotion of human uplift, but this kind of uplift is another matter. In many ways unions are good things in the opinion of all, and in those respects they are entitled to the respect and support of all. No antagonism to trades unionism’s universal beneficial activities is implied in reservation of approval of whatever unions choose to do in support of their own views of their own interests. Whenever unionists separate their interests from the common interests they challenge an opinion which should be given frankly, without any false sympathy. In the case in question those who. stand for the rights of all to work and wages are truer friends of human uplift than those who stand for the enjoyment of those rights by themselves alone. No fairness of words can make it good for all that nine-tenths shall be excluded from the rights of earning livelihood in the interests of one-tenth. Our institutions are not based upon the rule of the minority. If this case, stood alone it might be allowed to pass without comment, but similar cases are so frequent that it is necessary to take a staqd in defense of citizenship as against human uplift of this sort. Much as all would like to see all wages raised, there is one greater boon, and that is the equality of all under the law. That is the first condition of human uplift, and it is the very condition which organized labor denies not merely to capital but to the large majority of its own class. There is no need of taking care of capital. It has the power to take care of itself if the law is enforced, and if the law is not enforced the results will be worse for others than for capital. But there is great need for taking care of that majority of our citizenship which is not organized, and which is not putting out an}^ claims for human uplift. It was reported yesterday that “fists, clubs, and stones were freely used in a riot by half a hundred striking union tailors.” The objects of their resentment were some work- ers who had taken the strikers’ jobs after the strikers had abandoned them. The need of the “scabs” was greater than that of the strikers. With whom should the public sym- pathize, and which of the two parties is really more in favor of the human uplift? Yester- day’s mails brought another illustration from the opposite edge of the continent. In Port- land, Ore., the teamsters on strike have carried matters to such an extreme that employers have combined against them and are educating the public in the issues underlying the open shop and the recognition of the union. In a statement the associated merchant say: “The strike as a strike is over. It consists now merely in slugging non-union men on the quiet and in outbreaks that keep the city in a turmoil. The Police Department is not stop- ping it and is not keeping the order that it should.” Within a month we can catalogue assaults, riots, dynamitings, arson, enough to convince all except unionists, and even many of them, that the unions’ plea that they stand for human uplift is unworthy of acceptance, however strong may be the desire to see the cost of living alleviated to wage earners. 148 THE NEW POST, Published by the Cloak and Skirt Makers’ Union. Monday, August i, 1910. AN OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OE THE GENERAL EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE STRIKERS CONCERNING THE NEGOTIA- TIONS WITH THE BOSSES’ ASSOCIATION. Since the talk began concerning the negotiations with the Bosses’ Associa- tion rumors have begun to circulate that the general executive board, the body which our last convention authorized to call out a general strike, and is obvi- ously responsible for the settlement which will be made, is prepared to settle with the bosses, and not on the basis of an open shop, not to recognize the union and such other baseless stories. We desire to declare openly that these rumors can come only from enemies and not from friends of our organization, from persons who desire to see and expect our defeat. No strike can be successful where the mass has no confidence in its leaders or officers. The strikers may display the greatest of self-sacrifice, may possess the greatest endurance, but when they begin to suspect the leaders of betrayal or dishonesty, or when they think that the leaders do not understand their duty and are prepared to make a humiliating settlement, the struggle must be lost. Therefore, friends, the first thing that we demand of you is to understand that our last convention in turning over to us authority to call out the strike, to lead it and also to settle it, because the delegates were thoroughly convinced that the general executive board, which they elected at the convention, is entirely competent to carry out this great task, and have earned the confidence of the organization, we desire to warn you again that these vile instigations come from our enemies and not from our friends. The bosses can get no scabs. They cannot get their work done. They will have to make a settlement in favor of the organization, but if they s’nould succeed in ruining the reputations of the leaders, to plant the seed of suspicion in the masses against the officers and leaders of the strike, they will have accomplished something which neither the scabs nor the hired agents nor the burns nor the police can accomplish. The position of a union in the strike is now such that it gives us no cause to either compromise or weaken our organization. This outcry comes from dark sources and is caught up by the ignorant, uninformed new recruits who for many years stood outside of the organization. Persons to whom we have alwaj'S appealed, implored that they shall organize themselves, should recog- nize our union, should fight together with us, now they har^e become all at once red-hot patriots and pretend to be better union men and to understand the interests of the union better than the officers of our international organiza- tion who have spent their whole lives in the movement and in the interests of your organization. We appeal again to you. Do not become misled by betraying instigations. Our long service in the trade union movement has given us the right to demand your confidence, your devotion. You need to understand that the general executive board, together w^ith the general strike committee, knows its duty and has the right to demand the fullest confidence. Therefore, friends, do your duty. Be loyal strikers. Do not shirk picket duty. Attend yoi\r meetings. Watch your shops and w^e, the responsible leaders of the strike, will do our duty and there will be no doubt that the strike will end wdth a glorious victory for the cloak and skirt makers of New York city. 149 THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE INTERNATIONAL LADIES’ GARMENT WORKERS’ UNION. N. B. — The members of the general executive committee will visit the halls all day to-day and make personal explanations concerning the conference and the strike situation. CONCERNING THE CONFERENCE. Many irresponsibe persons are novv creating an uproar among the strikers that the leaders wish to settle the strike so t’nat the boss may have the right to employ non-union labor. We desire to inform you that any such statement is absolutely untrue. We never conceded this and we never shall. Do not forget that the present leaders of the strike are just as good union men as you are. They have had as much experience in union matters as anyone of you, and especially you know comrades Rosenberg, Poliakoff, Dyche, Schlesinger and the others too well ; they have gone through a number of general strikes and have always remained honest and true to the interests of the working man, and they will remain honest and true to the interests of the working man in the future. Be calm. Don’t agitate yourselves. No one will sell you out; use your activities in picketing your shops and in taking care of your shop interests. THE CONFERENCE IS END|ED. After conferring for three days with a committee of the J\Ianufacturers’ Association the conference was finally broken oft’, not only because the bosses v/ill not grant union shops, but because they have practically conceded noth- ing"; not because they feel that they are strong, for they were compelled to admit that their entire organization consists of only seventy-five members and there are 1,500 manufacturers in New York, but the bosses think that we are lemons and that they will be able to sc|ueeze us and that we are not. We will not recede from out demands. WHAT WE DEMAND FROM THE BOSSES. We demand that the bosses shall employ only union labor in all departments of cloaks and skirts. We demand an eight-hour working day and that either on Saturday or Sun- day only one-half day of labor. The cutters shall receive $26 a week. Skirt cutters not less than $22 a week. Jacket pressers, $22 a week. Jacket under pressers, $18 a week. Skirt pressers, $20 a week. Skirt under pressers, $16 a Week. Sample tailors, $24 a week. Buttonhole makers, $1.20 100 holes. The abolition of the inside contracting system. The bosses must give free machines and electric power, needles and straps. Wages must be paid only in cash. No workman may take work home. Prices of piece work must be so arranged that in eight hours it shall be pos- sible to earn $6 a day. 150 NOW WE WILL SEE WHAT THE BOSSES WANT TO GIVE US. The union shop they will not concede. They will install electric power after this season. They will abolish the contract system only when our union will bind itself to install the same system in other cities. Prices of piece work shall be figured at $3.50 a day. Sample tailors, $19 a week; jacket pressers, $20 a week; under pressers, $16 a week; piece pressers, $10 a week; jacket cutters, $25 a week; skirt cutters, $20 a week; canvas cutters, $12 a week and hours of labor shall be fifty-three. As you can see we cannot accept such a settlement, and we assure you that such a settlement will never be made. Be calm. * Do your work as heretofore and your strike will be won. With fraternal greetings. (Signed) A. ROSENBERG, President I. L. G. W. U. 151 From the New York Times, Friday, August 5, 1910. “UNION SHOP.” It is a pity that the striking garment makers did not see their way to accept the proposal of the employers. In the opinion of Mr. Brandeis, the investigator in the Ballinger ca,se, a friend of the laboring man, a settler of strikes, and chair- man of the conference between the disputants, “the strikers would not listen to reason.” The basis of this statement was that the employers had made con- cessions of almost everything regarding conditions of employment, and had agreed to accept arbitration of disputed remnants of controversy, except one. They in- sisted that they must keep control of their own shops, but declared their willing- ness to operate them as union shops. “Union shop” is a new term in labor parlance, and is worth understanding, for it differs from both the “closed shop” and the “open shop.” The proposal was to admit any one to employment, but to prefer unionists. The employers were willing to employ a majority of unionists, to make formal expression of sympathy with the union, and to co-operate with the union for the improvement of all con- ditions of employment. In this way alone is it possible to drive out of the trade the unfair competition of the sweatshop boss, the tenement workers, and unscru- pulous employers. In no other way could standards of sanitation and payment be imposed by obligation to refer differences to arbitration. This basis of peace is made impracticable by insistence upon the closed shop in all its rigor. To reject is the right of the unionists, but it bars further appeal to public sympathy. The good faith of the employers is established. 152 To THE Members of The Cloak^ Suit and Skirt Manufacturers' Protective Association. Gentlemen — The New York Evening Globe has applied to the Executive Board of the Association for permission to visit the factories of the members of the Association. At a meeting of the Executive Committee held this day it was determined that the shop of any members of the Association should be open to any representative of the press or to any authorized person desiring to visit the You will confer a favor on the Executive of the Evening Globe or any other newspaper shops for the purpose of inspection. Committee if you will permit a representative representative to visit your factory. Very truly yours, (Signed) Executive Committee. 153 From the GLOBE AND COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER, NEW YORK, JULY 19, 1910 NO SWEAT SHOPS THESE. WHERE CLOAKMAKERS TOIL Big Factories and Many of the Smaller Ones Are, in Reality, Models in Sanitation and Provision for Comfort of Workers. Side of the Picture But Little Known. Impartial Inspection of Big Workshops Shows That an Earnest, Honest Effort is Made to Remove Evils of Which Complaint Has Been Made. By VIRGINIA TYLER HUDSON. “If you are a good housekeeper and keep your kitchen clean, can you help it if your neighbor has flies in hers?” Such was the plaintive query of A. Beller, one of the “big men” of the cloak and suit making trade which is today, and for a week or so has been, wrestling with a strike that bids fair to thoroughly disorganize one of the city’s biggest industrial fields for some time to come. Their one hope is a Moses to lead them out of the wilderness of troubles into which certain labor union leaders have led and promptly lost them. Then goes on Mr. Beller, still plaintively : “If your upstairs girls and your cook and maids should leave because you can’t or don’t keep the flies out of your neighbor’s kitchen, would you like it?” In an epigrammatic way, Mr. Beller voices the woes of the great body of cloak, suit and skirt manufacturers, brings the situation more clearly home to the disinterested than all the technical talk dispensed by the executive in their organized body who are endeavoring, late, to show that there are two sides to the story of the present strike. Through the press and through untiring speakers on street corners and in halls, the public have been made thoroughly conversant with the strikers’ side of the story. It has been their endeavor to show that the striking men are on the borderland of an industrial millen- nium that is being brought about by their own arbitrary tactics, when “bosses” shall be a thing unheard, unknown, and the man who works for wage, will be almighty through the power of the monarchy of union he will set up. But of the other side — of the viewpoint of the manufacturer and employer whom it has evidently never occurred to the strikers to believe may have any rights, save those union accredited rights of oppression — nothing practically has been heard. The result has been to leave the general public in ignorance of the conditions that prevail in all shops except an occasional discredited one, and to allow them to harbor the idea that the present strike was brought about because of unbearable sanitary conditions existing, for underpaid wages for work done, and general oppression on the part of employers toward employees. THE OTHER SIDE. Fair play — a desire to “give the devil his due,” alone, has prompted The Globe to find out more about this particular strike from the neglected viewpoint of the manufacturers them- selves. I have been among them unheralded, unexpected, to “find out thing” for myself, or, rather, for The Globe readers. Previous experience has taught me that there would probably be a cry that only accept- able places had been visited were the selection of them left to the association’s executives, so I began another way. Racegoers have heard of the method of selection used before — but it is efficacious. I simply took a long typewritten list of cloak, suit and skirt manu- facturers’ names, held it in front of me, closed my eyes, and poked holes in it with a per- fectly good hatpin. So were the choices of places for investigation made — and here they are. Perhaps it was fortunate for showing the uninitiated what a really model cloak and suit factory is that one of the first places so selected at random was the house of A. Beller & Co., of 37 West 26th street. 154 If conditions in any line of business are really ideal, they are there. From the private office of Mr. Seller himself, with its framed quotations from Ruskin on the wall, through the three floors of cutting rooms, model rooms, sewing rooms, down to the waste chute, nothing is missing for creature comfort. The workrooms on two of the floors occupy the entire floor space of the building, and windows are at intervals of a few inches in all four walls. It is high up above the roar of the city, and as we stepped into the machine room a grateful breeze blew in upon me — the first I, at least, had encountered in a heat-ridden day. “Why, this is fine and cool !” I exclaimed, but Mr. Seller, my guide, merely smiled. “Well, we don’t wait for breezes for circulation,” he announced, pointing to a queer sort of an arrangement on the ceiling that reminded me of an old-fashioned shoot the chutes fire escape. “There is our cold-air ventilator — the same as they have in the theaters.” And, saying which, he led me past long rows of idle sewing machines, past the little elevator for the private use of employees bringing goods or bundles from one floor to another, past the tiled dressing rooms and Altered water plant, to the top floor of the building. This is given over entirely to the comfort of the employees. Long rows of immaculately clean white oil- cloth-covered tables were before each window from which the Hudson and the Palisades could be seen, and ships riding idly at anchor. Three or four partitions divided the tables, and I looked inquiringly at my guide. “Ah, you notice it?” he asked. “Well, this section is for the Americans,” indicating, “this for the Jews, this for the Italians, this for the French, and these marble-topped tables over here are for the forewomen and foremen.” At the end of the room is a counter, ice boxes, coffee urns, and necessaries for a caterer. I found by inquiring of him that the employees of the firm could get double-sized sand- wiches there for 5 cents, a pot of coffee or tea for 3, and other food for as comparatively small sums. MANY WOULD RETURN. “Well, if things are as they seem to me,” I remarked, “don’t your people want to come back to work?” “There are a lot of them who would gladly,” answered Mr. Seller, “but we don’t care to have them exposed to injury from a lot of wild-eyed fanatics. There is plenty of time We are just going to wait a week or so. Why, we haven’t had a rest in thirty-two years, and the machines need a vacation. Any way, our customers understand and- are willing to wait for their orders.” As he spoke we were passing through the finishing room, where a tailor and two or three women were busy at work putting the finishing touches on some garments. “Still, you have some people at work,” I noticed, “and I have seen none an}rwhere else.” “Aw, you couldn’t drive some of them away,” was his comment. “They think this is a free country and are going to work if they want to. Ain’t that so, Abe?” he asked the man, who only looked up a minute, shrugged his shoulders scornfully with a murmured something about “anarchists,” and went on with his work. “Well, anyway, I guess I’ll go along and take a chance with ’em for awhile,” caustically remarked one of the women, a young American, as we filed past. “Now,” announced Mr. Beller, triumphantly, “are there any flies in our kitchen?” I was compelled to admit that his screens were excellent, but asked about some of the other places which have, according to the union leaders, brought about the trouble. “There isn’t a single manufacturer who wouldn’t like to see such places cleaned up, but he don’t want his own business disrupted to do it. Let every one attend to keeping things right in his own place, say I, and things will be a lot better. If there is a grievance in one place let it be adjusted there. This other method of a general strike is just like having the American soldiers rise up in battle against America because Russia is rotten !” THE WAGES PAID. The examination of the books of A. Beller & Co. showed the same thing 1 found in practically every place visited — that tailors, boss tailors, who work by the week, get from $30 to $40; cutters, fitters, and other piece workers get from $15 to $35, the average being $25 a week, and that occasionally an unusually good man commands as high as $60 a week or over. It has been one of the complaints of the union people that these figures do not represent the earnings of one man or woman, but rather that the person whose name is on the book is a sub-contractor who, aside from the firm, pays the people he employs and brings into the factories to work. This, however, is generally denied, and it is claimed if such a sys- tem exists now at all it is with the smaller firms and not with any reputable houses. “The strange thing to me,” said Mr. A. E. Lefcourt, of 27 West 24th street, president of the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association, “is that the strikers who have been demanding the doing away of contract work are doing all they can to subject themselves and us to oppression of the worst kind. What they really demand is that all contract work must be done away with except with that one big contractor, the union. “The workers are not so anxious to do away with the contract system as the manu- facturers, but the latter are trying to eliminate it in a rational and intelligent manner. They are trying every way to get the result from the workers first hand wherever it is possible, but the agitators of the strike want it all done in a minute, irrespective of what it may mean to invested capital. Progress will settle this matter very fast, particularly in our business.” Mr. Lefcourt’s place of business, like the one already described, is one in a tower- ing modern building, reached by swift-moving elevators, with roomy quarters, elec- trically cooled in summer, steam heated in winter, so light that the added light of an electric bulb or so would be a mere flicker in the daylight. Like all the others visited, it is a far cry from the factory of a dozen years or so ago, and the changes have been effected without union interference. IN SMALLER FACTORIES. Further down town to some of the smaller factories, the hatpin points led me to the places of business of A. Fein & Son of 33 West Seventeenth street and Katz & Fishel of 18 West Eighteenth street. Both of these occupy but a single floor — factory, show rooms, and offices included. A. Fein & Son employ but a few people, and there is accordingly not the vast and elaborate arrangement for the convenience of employees found in bigger establishments. But there is not a machine which is not in front of a window opening on a street, the sanitary conditions are good, and a big cutting table is placed in a light space at one end of the room, on which the employees may eat their luncheon. “As far as pay goes,” said Mr. Fein, “we have never had any arguments that we could not settle satisfactorily ourselves. If a man thinks he is not getting enough for certain kinds of work, he simply comes to me and says so, and gets what he wants if it is at all possible.” The clock hanging motionless, allowed to run down, in the factory of Katz & Fishel, spoke eloquently of the stopping of a big business — a lull in one of the city’s big industries — whose full import and consequences have not impressed themselves as they merit. Probably, though it has not occurred to a careless public that, for each week the strikers remain out, there is a million and a half dollars out of circulation. Mr. Fishel undoubtedly realizes the importance of the matter, however, for it was with a look of sadness that he gazed down his rows of silent machines with the sun- light falling upon them through the closed windows. He showed me all through the place, though, even the big zinc-lined box for waste, the lockers and toilet arrange- ments, and then he said, mournfully shaking his head : 156 “I don’t know why they did it. We’ve tried to do all we could — we’re willing to do anything they ask, too — anything but let their walking delegate come in here and tell us how to run our business.” That was the constant cry of them all — to be allowed to be their own masters and “boss” of their own affairs. It is the snag against which the union officials will stick when they try to come to terms, for never will the manufacturers give up their prized possession of power, even should there come a time when that would be their only possession. This I feel safe in predicting in all good conscience. Nor is it said inadvisedly, but after days of plodding from one factory to another, of interviewing one maker of gar- ments after another, which has taught me a lesson in solidarity that unions may well envy. And not without reason have even the most pliable decided to stand by their guns. PREPARED TO HOLD OUT. “Never has there been a time when the manufacturers were not in a position to hold out against unjust demands,” Max Schwartz, of 85 Fifth avenue, told me when he showed me about his big factory, with all its modern conveniences and well laid ar- rangements for the bodily comfort and health of the hundreds he employs. “In the first place we are in a position to hold off in our orders for some time to come. Then there are a hundred or so alone of us of the 27,000 or more manufac- turers in the city who are in a position to command millions of dollars. So we have formed the Protective Association, where each man who joins is assessed from $25 a year up, according to his working capital, and that money is to go to tide over the smaller manufacturer, to whom the loss of a single contract might mean ruin. Has it occurred to you to ask if the strike instigators will be able to tide over the misguided men and women they have persuaded to strike?” L. E. Rosenful, of 105 Fifth avenue, one of the biggest men in the business, em- ploys more than 600 people to make the garments he furnishes to three firms alone. It takes three floors to accommodate these people, exclusive of the offices. Still, for all the great number, there is no suspicion of crowded condition. Every machine is in a cool place beside an outside window, the men and women have toilet arrangements far separated, more resembling the retiring rooms of hotels than business houses. Elevators on every side of the room make for comfort, and, as in hundreds of other like places, there is a caterer who serves the employees in a big, light lunch room. “My men didn’t want to quit — I know it,” said Mr. Rosenthal. “Why, many of them are begging me to get a place outside somewhere for them to work. Some of my people have been with me between twelve and fifteen years, and can make $60 in busy times, so I know they are being kept away through no grievance of their own.” It was young Mr. Rubin, though of the firm of Rubin Bros., of 18 West 18th street, who told me the real reason there are so many empty factories and practically no men at work in the cloak and suit business. It may have been, too, that in speaking Mr. Rubin was giving voice to his own inclinations not to see a living creature injured through his fault (didn’t I hear him call to a watchman to take a starving, squalling cat that was marooned in the empty factory down stairs and feed it?), still he voiced the sentiments of many . “We don’t want any one to come out of this strike injured for life, maybe, just because they wanted to work, and we allowed them to work for us. No, sir — er, no, ma’am, I mean. We’re going to wait awhile.” A WAITING POLICY. That’s their policy, now, it would seem — to “wait a while.” On some it falls heavier than others : on the firms who are just starting in business, as, for instance, the firm of Brous, Nevins & Co., of 585 Broadway. Still, even they need not worry. It has only cost them $25 to be assured that their business will be protected. To others the delay is not serious. To S. L. Silver, of 8 East 32nd street, say, who has just moved there from 87 Fifth avenue. It is merely giving him more oppor- tunity to have his inlaid woodwork finished, to have the tessellated floors in his lunch rooms, dressing rooms, and retiring rooms more brightly scoured and to finish installing his hot and cold air plant which is to add comfort to his employees. Truly, after an examination of the working plans of S. L. Silver, it seems a quixotic adherent of unionism as a religion merely who could leave his work there. For years it has been the custom of this firm to have semi-yearly conferences between the members of the firm and the duly elected delegates from the employed. Then the wage scale was settled to the satisfaction of all concerned. “I don’t want to make my money out of the people who work for me,” warmly de- clared Mr. Silver, as one accused. Then he added, slyly: “If I need a little more I just add a dollar or two to the price of the garment, and let the purchaser make my money.” From an outside source I heard another thing or two about how Mr. Silver treats his employees. One case in point is that of Frank Cassidy, a tailor. For thirteen weeks Cassidy was in the hospital, only recently being allowed to leave, and during all that time his $35 a week, which he earned when working for Silver, came promptly to the hospital each week, besides many luxuries sent by the firm. I could not help won- dering if Cassidy, were he askedj would exchange that for the dollar a week (maybe) that the unions dole out to starving strikers. It would be impossible to go into details of the conditions found in all the fac- tories that the hatpin marked. It is sufficient to say that these mentioned are not out of the ordinary. Some larger, some smaller, all doing their best to be just as near the model set by A. Seller and hundreds of others as they possibly can. If you don’t believe it suppose you drop in unexpectedly on a number of them — any number — and find out. I’ll give you the names of the hatpin-marked ones: Charles Heineman, of 28 West 27th street; Wald & Fein, of 122 West 15th street; Eckstein & Butler, of 18 West 20th street; Schaff & Mandel, of 32 West 18th street; L. B. Vogel, of 27 West 20th street; Charles Sturmen, of 33 West 35th street; L. A. Mendelson, of 28 West 27th street; Max Solomon, of 11 West Nineteenth street; Gettler & Murray, of 45 West 25th street; the Empire Cloak and Suit Company, of 29 West 24th street, and R. Sadowsky, of 801 Broadway. But there are thousands of others — all willing that you should see and should know whether or not they have flies in their kitchens and so should lose their hired girls. 158 Date Due