The officers of the National Association of Builders invited the
Bricklayers to meet them and to state their grievances. The invitation
was accepted, and on Monday, May 23d, A. E. Vorkeller, president, and
William Householder, C. J. Lindgren, James Sedlak and John Pierson,
called upon the officials. After a session of three hours, during which
the committee ventilated its opinions on almost every subject of
grievance known to mortar-spreading humanity, the issue was finally
reduced to the vexed question of a Saturday pay-day. Interrogated upon
all subjects, the protesting committee acknowledged itself perfectly
satisfied with every existing condition except that of being paid on
Monday or Tuesday, instead of Saturday. This the committee claimed was
an encroachment upon their Sabbatarian rights which no honest and
industrious bricklayer would submit to with obedience or patient
humility.
Bankers, merchants, architects, builders, and all classes of citizens
responded to an invitation to confer with the officers of the National
Association, and offered suggestions in regard to the troubles which
were prostrating business and unnecessarily causing losses to employer
and employe which could never be recovered. After carefully considering
the situation the Executive Board of the National Association made a
comprehensive report, which is as follows:
CHICAGO, May 24th, 1887.
_To the Builders' and Traders' Exchange of Chicago and all filial
bodies of the National Association of Builders, and to the general
public_:--
In view of the serious disturbance to building interests in the
City of Chicago, and the widespread influence likely to flow from
it to other localities, affecting not only the building trades, but
all branches of industry in the United States, it has been thought
wise to call the Executive Board of the National Association of
Builders to this city, to carefully examine the situation,
investigate the causes which have produced the existing conditions,
and report thereon to all filial bodies for their information,
together with such suggestions for their future action as may seem
wise and best. All interested parties (and every business has
interests more or less directly involved in this question) should
thoroughly understand that the National Association of Builders
assumes no powers of a dictatorial character; it simply acts as an
advisory body, and communicates its conclusions only in the form of
recommendations, which its affiliated associations may or may not
adopt or follow, as the circumstances by which they are surrounded
demand. But it should also be borne in mind that the National
Association endeavors to confine its expressions of advice and
recommendation to the general principles that underlie and affect
conditions in all localities, and in this especial issue and crisis
which has arrived in one of the most important business centers in
this country, the Executive Board intends to be particularly
careful, while considering the facts that exist in this city, to
avoid as much as possible in its advice or recommendations, all
local or superficial issues, and deal largely with the problem that
is rapidly demanding solution in every city and town in the land.
It is one of the purposes of the National Association to keep
watchful guard over the interests of builders everywhere throughout
the country, giving its advice and assistance to all its members
when difficulties arise, using its influence with them to secure
and maintain just relations either in their contact with each other
or in their relations to owners, architects or workmen, and prevent
the encroachment of other interests upon ground that belongs to
them.
The exact circumstances that have brought about the present
blockade of business in Chicago may not be absolutely identical
with the issues that have caused similar disturbances in other
cities, and they may not be exactly reproduced in the future in any
other locality; but the root from which they spring has been
planted everywhere, and while the plant may be good and worthy, it
is a matter of the greatest concern to all that the growth from it
be carefully watched and held in check, lest it assume such rank
and oppressive proportions that other interests, equally valuable
and necessary, be overgrown and choked. It is sometimes necessary
to prune a vine of rank and unhealthy growth, in order that it may
bear good fruit. We apprehend that the experience of the builders
of Chicago in this crisis will be of great importance to builders
in other cities, and we hope to utilize their experience in such a
way that general business interests will be better protected and
preserved in the future, the proper purposes, opportunities and
interests of organizations of workmen maintained and encouraged,
and that the individual workman himself, whether he be connected
with organizations or independent of them, may be placed in a
position where he may exercise unquestioned his rights as an
American citizen.
In this endeavor we ask the co-operation of all business men,
particularly those whose affairs bring them into direct contact
with the difficult and perplexing questions incident to the
employment of labor, and the community generally, for the public as
a whole has an immense stake in this question of individual
liberty. We have endeavored to make our inquiries in a
disinterested spirit, and, in pursuance of this purpose, have given
hearings to the employing builders, the Bricklayers' Union,
non-union workmen, manufacturers, merchants, bankers, architects
and business men generally, believing that we could only consider
the question fairly by listening to all sides and opinions.
The result of our investigation leads us to report as follows:
The demand for pay-day on Saturday by the Bricklayers' Union, which
precipitated the present blockade of business in the building
trades in Chicago, was in itself inconsequent and trivial, and a
concession or denial of it, on its merits, would have been
immaterial; but it was presented in such a manner, at a time when
the hodcarriers' strike, in progress, had been supported by the
Amalgamated Building Trades, and had been preceded by such
concessions on the part of the employers, that they felt this to
be the "last straw," and that their duty to themselves and others
compelled them to make a stand and demand a surrender of the rights
which had been previously abrogated. In this course, and in the
manner in which the builders have presented their convictions and
method of future action, we believe that nothing has been done
beyond what the situation imperatively demanded, and the safe and
proper conduct of business required; we are only astonished that
the crisis has not been sooner reached. It seems to us that this
strike or lockout was not caused by a demand that it was impossible
to grant, but was the direct result of the assumption by
organizations of workmen, for a number of years, of rights not
properly within their jurisdiction, and the demand coming, as it
did, under such aggravating circumstances, occasion was properly
taken, in our opinion, for a complete cessation of business, in
order that it might finally be decided and settled whether the
employer should for the future be free from further encroachments,
and that he might recover those rights and prerogatives which
properly belong to him. It is worthy of note that this issue or
demand was not made in the dull season, when it might have been
more easily arranged, or at least considered, but after the busy
season was reached, and in addition to and in support of existing
strikes. The Union making it did not seek to consult the employers
in regard to its feasibility, although after it was promulgated
(the employers requesting a re-consideration), a slight alteration
was made in one of the details.
It appears, according to the testimony of the Bricklayers' Union,
that there has been no general strike in their trade for the last
four years, but they admit that during that period they have been
successful in enforcing certain rules and regulations in regard to
control of journeyman and apprentices (which are set forth in their
printed Constitution and By-laws), and that the enforcement of
these rules has caused strikes or stoppages of work in many cases,
upon certain jobs.
It is in the rules or regulations referred to that conditions are
imposed which the builders claim are an encroachment on their
peculiar rights as well as the rights of independent workmen, and
that in submitting to them they have made concessions which they
can no longer endure.
In this opinion we entirely and heartily concur.
We will cite a few of these rules, calling attention to the fact
that although the employers have at least an equal interest in the
matters treated, they have never been even consulted in their
formulation, but have been expected to comply with them as
presented, and have so complied, for the reason, as they claim,
that they could not help themselves.
The first rule, or regulation, or custom, which demands notice is
that which prevents workmen, not members of the Union, from
obtaining work. This is excused by the declaration of the Union
that they do not claim that the non-union man shall not work--they
simply will not work with him; but this explanation is purely a
clever evasion of the point at issue, for the workman is by force
of circumstances deprived of opportunity to labor, and the position
taken by the Union is manifestly a conspiracy against the rights of
the individual.
It may truly be considered the first step towards setting up an
oligarchy in the midst of a free people.
This assumed right is most tenaciously held and is one of the most
dangerous expedients ever adopted by a voluntary association. We
believe it to be a direct attack upon individual liberty, and an
evil that will re-act upon those who attempt to establish it. We
also believe it to be entirely unnecessary for the welfare of
Unions--that all the ends they wish to gain can be secured by
legitimate measures, and that not until they cut out this cancer
will harmony be restored and reforms established. This custom
should be constantly and absolutely denied.
The next rule which we wish to consider is that establishing a
"walking delegate."
Some of the functions of this officer (if he may be so designated),
as explained by members of the Union, are perfectly harmless, and
possibly quite a convenience; but if proper relations were
permitted to exist between employer and workman these functions
could be equally well sustained by the foreman on the job. There
are other powers, however, with which he is invested, which are so
arbitrary in their character, which deprive the employer so
completely of that control of workmen necessary to the prosecution
of his work, that it is simply ridiculous to submit to it. For
instance, "He shall be empowered to use his personal judgment on
all points of disagreement between employer and employe, between
regular meetings."--ARTICLE V., SEC 4.
The simplest mind can readily see how little control the employer
has left him, when a man not in his employ is permitted to come
upon his work and "use his personal judgment" in questions of
disagreement, the workman being obliged to then obey his orders.
The employer seems to be a mere cipher under this arrangement, and
can only fold his hands and wait till the "regular meeting" (at
which he has no opportunity to be heard) settles whether the
"personal judgment" exercised be just and fair. The result can be
imagined. In the hands of an exceptionally honest and discreet
person such a power would be dangerous enough, but in the control
of a man who may not possess these qualities, or possess one of
them without the other, the chances of stoppage of work under his
orders, the constant annoyances to which employers, architects and
owners may be subjected, makes this infliction too grievous to be
borne. The thousands of unnecessary strikes, stoppages and
obstructions to work for every conceivable cause, or no cause,
which have occurred in all parts of the country in the name of
justice and the walking delegate, are evidence enough that to
owner, architect, employer and workman, he is an abomination not to
be tolerated. As an adjunct to the walking delegate comes the
"steward," who, like him, has some functions perfectly
unobjectionable, but who in other ways is empowered to assume
certain direction and control which surely is not consistent with
the duties of a workman, that is, if the workman is considered to
have any duty to his employer. It is noticeable that in the
description of the duties of these two gentlemen, it is the
"interests of the Union" only that they are directed to observe; it
is true that the walking delegate is not an employe, but he is to
have free access to the work, can interfere and obstruct as he
pleases, but the interest of the employer seems to have been
omitted in the recital of his duties. When it is considered how
much is taken off the hands of the employer by these two persons,
it is somewhat a matter of surprise that owner and architect burden
themselves with the useless middle man, the nominal employer, when
they can have the whole matter handled by the Union and its agents.
The rules in relation to apprentices are peculiarly restrictive and
leave nothing whatever that is worth possessing in the hands of the
employer. We cannot imagine why any contractor would care to have
apprentices at all, if their direction and control is to be so
completely out of his hands.
These rules declare that "no contractor shall be allowed to have
more than two apprentices at a time;" "he will not be allowed to
have any more until their time is completed;" "he may then replace
them."
The contractor must sign such indentures as are prepared by the
Union without consultation with him. "No contractor will be allowed
to have an apprentice over eighteen years of age unless he be the
son of a journeyman who is a member of the Union." Apprentices must
also be members. The contractor is thus debarred from putting his
own son at apprenticeship if he happens to be eighteen years of
age. This appears to be most emphatic special legislation. In fact
the whole management and control of apprentices is virtually in the
hands of the Union, and we submit again that such action as this is
most indefensive and pernicious. It has already caused a tremendous
reduction in the number of young men learning the trade, and, if
practiced in other branches of business, would create a state of
revolt among the people, and would be denounced throughout the
length and breadth of the land as a violation of rights heretofore
supposed to be secured when this country became a Republic.
Foremen upon the work must be members of the Union. Inspectors upon
public buildings must be practical bricklayers in the opinion of
the Union, and members of it; in fact there are so many points that
demonstrate the development of this one-sided power of the Union,
and showing abuse of their place and mission that we cannot take
time or space to enlarge upon them.
To our mind the Constitution of this Union, and many others, is
framed upon the assumption that all employers are dishonest and bad
men, so all are to suffer alike.
The Union seem to have come to the conclusion that the laws of the
land are not sufficient, and they propose to be not only a law unto
themselves but a law unto all others who come in contact with them.
This assumption, if permitted to stand and grow, will tend to
disintegrate the whole social and political fabric upon which
citizens of this country depend for protection; and we believe it
to be our duty to call upon all good citizens to deny it in
unequivocal terms.
We submit that these "rules" which we have quoted, and other
customs which have naturally grown from such development of power
(which are neither written or admitted by the Union, but which
nevertheless exist), are distinctly an encroachment upon the
province of the employer; that under them he is robbed of that
control and authority absolutely essential to the proper conduct of
his business.
Submission to such dictation as this simply opens the door wider
for interference, and the employer is not secure from day to day
from new and harassing demands, so that eventually he will have
practically nothing left to him but the "privilege" of paying the
bills.
The crisis here in Chicago is of tremendous importance and
significance to every builder and every business man, not alone in
this great and rapidly growing city, but in every city of the
country, for here is seen a demonstration of the tyranny which
becomes possible when improper methods are submitted to; a tyranny
which holds the workman in its grasp quite as surely as the
employer, and this experience and demonstration should be a timely
warning to all.
Labor Unions have gone too far.
They have mistaken their functions and over-stepped their
boundaries.
The time has come to "call a halt," and to demand a surrender of
that which has been improperly obtained.
To do this will require some patience and some sacrifice, but the
end to be gained is but justice and right, and worth all that it
may cost.
Better that not another brick be laid or another nail be driven in
Chicago for a year than this opportunity be lost to regain the
rights and prerogatives which make it possible for employer and
workman to be independent and successful.
Let nothing be done to injure the Union in the prosecution of their
rightful purposes; they have a most important mission and a great
field for usefulness. Aid and assist them in these things by every
means in your power, but for their own good, as well as your own
safety, stand constantly and steadfastly opposed to any and every
attempt to take away that which makes you an employer, or from the
workman himself the right to work.
Trade Unionism in theory, and as it may be consistently and
intelligently carried out, can be a most useful aid to all
concerned; but, as at present managed, clinging fast as it does to
the cardinal principle of the right to prevent any and every man
from working who does not happen to belong to the order, it is a
bane to society and a curse to its members. We approve of the
position taken by the builders of Chicago in this emergency, and we
congratulate them that other branches of business, whose interests
are so closely interwoven with theirs, have had the courage and
willingness to make common cause with them, recognizing, as they
evidently do, that if this sort of dictation is permitted to grow,
that their own position will become undermined and security vanish.
We congratulate them also that general business interests have
given them such hearty co-operation and support, and we feel
assured that will continue until the victory is won.
We recommend all filial associations of this body to assume the
same attitude in the event of an issue being forced upon them by
further encroachments, and we suggest to them, as well as to the
Builders' and Traders' exchange of Chicago, that, in order to
encourage all workmen who wish to have an opportunity to freely
work, untrammelled by the improper requirements and rules of
voluntary associations (membership in which, as far as most workmen
are concerned, have become involuntary), and be protected in their
work, it will be wise to create and establish at once a Bureau of
Record in connection with their associations, where any and all
workmen may put themselves on record as assenting to the principles
of individual liberty, announced here in Chicago, and by and
through which the workmen so assenting will be kept at work, and
protected in it, in preference to those who deny these principles.
Let steps be taken, after a certain time given to develop the
honest purpose, good character, skill and ability of the workmen,
to make them members of your own associations, and so institute,
for the first time, a union wherein employer and employe shall be
joined, and their interests considered in common, as they properly
should be. We believe this would be a step in the right direction,
and the dawn of the day when the two branches of workmen--the
directing workman and the manual workman--will not be arrayed
against each other, but will consider and act in concert for their
mutual benefit.
Closing now our report to filial associations, we wish to address a
few words to the public at large, whose servants we are.
We believe that the builders of this country stand to-day in a
position which commands the attention of all kinds and classes of
business men everywhere.
We wish to do only that which is right and in accordance with the
principles upon which this Republic was founded.
Individual liberty is the dearest possession of the American
people; we intend to stand by it and protect it in every emergency,
and, to our mind, there has never been before presented an occasion
more significant and decisive than the present, and in doing all we
can to sustain it we feel that we are fighting not for our selfish
ends alone, but for the welfare and protection of every individual
in the land.
Individual liberty is not incompatible with associations, and
associations are not incompatible with individual liberty; on the
contrary, they should go hand in hand.
We call upon all to sustain us in maintaining all that is good and
in defeating all that is bad in this difficult problem of labor.
Liberty is our watchword, and this struggle is but a continuation
of that endeavor which began a hundred years ago, when a little
band of patriots, at Concord Bridge, "fired that shot heard round
the world," which was the first blow in establishing American
independence.
Signed,
J. M. BLAIR,
JOHN S. STEVENS,
EDWARD E. SCRIBNER,
WM. H. SAYWARD,
JOHN J. TUCKER,
Executive Board of the National Association of Builders.