Trade organizations of almost every character had experienced difficulty
in securing all they demanded from time to time, because of a want of
co-operation--in their semi-tyrannical efforts--from kindred
organizations. If the carpenters made a demand which was refused by the
bosses, and non-union men should thereafter be employed on a building,
they wanted the union employes in all other trades, working on the same
job, to lay down their tools and walk out--a boycott must at once be
established. If an employer assumed the right to carry on his own
business in a manner which was distasteful to one or more employes in
one trade, he must be forced to quit business until he was ready to obey
the mandate of the trade affected. If he interposed an objection to such
interference, he should be taught a severe lesson under the tyrannical,
barbarous rule of the boycott.
In order to lay the foundation for joint action in the direction
indicated, a meeting was held April 10th, at which a plan of
organization of the building trades was discussed. It was then deemed
advisable to secure the consent of the various trade organizations in
the city to the creation of a council for what was called "mutual
protection." The proposition met with most hearty approval by ten trade
organizations, the members of which saw at once how much more tightly
the rein of tyranny could be drawn over a contractor who might be able
to successfully vanquish one trade, but would have to accede to anything
when employes in ten building trades were arrayed against him.
Delegates were appointed to what it was proposed to call "The
Amalgamated Council of the Building Trades of Chicago," from the
following trade and labor organizations: Carpenters, Painters,
Derrickmen, Hod-carriers, Steam-fitters, Lathers, Gas-fitters,
Galvanized-iron and Cornice workers, Slaters and Stair-builders.
A meeting was held at Greenebaum's hall on Sunday, April 17th. A
constitution and by-laws were adopted and officers were elected as
follows: President, J. H. Glenn; Vice-President, P. A. Hogan; Secretary,
Ed. Bates; Financial Secretary, J. Burns; Treasurer, V. Carroll;
Sergeant-at-Arms, J. Woodman.
As soon as the organization was perfected it affected dictatorial
powers, assuming the right to regulate nearly everything of any
consequence for the unions which were represented. The objects of the
Council were declared to be "to centralize the efforts and experience of
the various organizations engaged in the erection and alteration of
buildings, and, with common interest, prevent that which may be
injurious, and also to properly perfect and carry into effect that which
they deem advantageous to themselves. When any organization represented
in the Council is desirous of making a demand for either an advance in
wages or an abridgement of the hours of labor, it is required to make a
report thereon to the Council, through its delegates, prior to the
demand being made, when, if the action is concurred in by a two-thirds
vote, it is to be declared binding."
In effect, the Council became an offensive and defensive body, the
principal business of which was to take advantage of every employer in
the building trades. If one should refuse to yield a point demanded by
one trade, however unjust the demand might be, it was the business of
this boycott Council to "carry into effect that which they deemed
advantageous to themselves," which, on ordinary occasions, would result
in a stoppage of work of every kind upon a building until the employer
should yield. They also expected to be in a position to compel all
non-union men to obey the mandates of the organization.
At a meeting of the Council, April 23d, the constitution was amended by
adding the following section:
It shall be the special duty of this Council to use the united
strength of the organizations represented therein to compel all
non-union men to conform to and obey the laws of the organizations
to which they should properly belong.
This stroke at personal liberty was strictly in furtherance of the
"advantage" sought to be taken of the employer. The same power was to be
brought to bear upon the workmen, who assumed the right to be
independent, by seeking to "compel" them to "obey laws of the
organizations to which they should properly belong." Not content with
boycotting the employer, they must arrange a boycott upon a
fellow-workman, because he might decline to join one of their unions. As
if to "compel" a free man to do that against which his manhood revolts!