Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

tice. It is entitled to your affiliation and worthy of your best service. You should be proud to be in its ranks.

Be a man! Join the trade union movement and be a fighter in the glorious cause of liberty. Bid defiance to your foes! Carry the war into their unholy camp and drive them before your organized power! As the great poet Longfellow says:

"In the world's broad field of battle, In the bivouac of Life,

Be not like dumb driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!"

EMPLOYERS' EDUCATION

WILL NOT BENEFIT BOYS.

voca

San Francisco. The suggestion that employers should control tional education established by this state is opposed by the Labor Clarion, which says:

"If the employer were to be given exclusive control over vocational education the student would be trained to fit in as a cog in the machinery without much regard for its effect upon his future. The idea kept in mind would be that of specialization because the specialist is profitable to the employer. That this would be the result of control by the employers has been amply demonstrated by their conduct in connection with the old trade apprenticeship system under which boys were kept at work where they were most profitable and given little or no opportunity to learn the trade.

"Such training is a handicap rather than a benefit to the boy, because it holds his education down to such narrow limitations that he is left absolutely at the mercy of his present employer owing to the fact that specialization has limited his opportunities for employment elsewhere. It requires no great development of reasoning powers for one to appreciate that while this condition of affairs is profitable to the employer, it is detrimental alike to the pupil and society as a whole. It is nonsensical to talk of placing vocational training schools in the hands of employers.

"The predominating consensus of opinion among those who have given the question careful and unbiased consideration is that such schools should be democratically managed under the direction of the regularly established educational authorities, advised by committees of employers and employes."

HIGH COST AND THE FARMERS.

A Western farmer drove into town the other day to get an old-fashioned article a buggy-and the salesman at the implement store showed him one at $90.

"Talk about the high cost of living," the farmer grumbled. "I can remember that my father bought a buggy exactly like that for $60 twenty years ago."

The salesman remembered the sale, too, and he responded quickly:

"Your father turned in 300 bushels of corn to pay for it. Now, I'll do better by you than I did by you. father. You bring in your 300 bushels of corn and I'll let you pick out this list:"

And the salesman wrote down:
One $90 buggy.
One $50 wagon.

One $20 suit of clothes.
One $20 dress.

One $5 baby dress.
One $5 crib.

One $3 box of cigars.
$2 worth of sugar.
$1.50 worth of coffee.
$1 worth of tea.

$40 worth of gasoline.

$2.50 worth of lubricating oil.

The total figured $240, the value of the 300 bushels of corn it had taken to buy a $90 buggy twenty years before. The farmer climbed back into his motor car.

"I guess I haven't got any kick coming on the high cost of living," he said. "Send out that $90 buggy."Kansas City Star.

When any one swipes your umbrella it's a sure sign of rain.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

SAFE LOADS FOR STEEL “I” BEAMS.

Dist.

betw.

3 Inch.

516171

[blocks in formation]

71 | 81 | 91 |10|| 93 |121 | 141 lbs lbs lbs lbs lbs lbs lbs. lbs lbs. lbs.

8600 9680 10770

7370 8300 9230 6450 7260 8080

4 ft. 4410 4780|5180||7950 8470 9000 9520||12900|14520|16160 5 ft. 3530 3830 4140|| 6360 6780 7200 7610 10320 11620 12930 6 ft. 2940 3190|3450||5300|5650|6000|6350 7 ft. 2520 2730|2960||4540|4840|5140|5440| 8 ft. 2210 2390 2590|| 3980 4240|4500|4760] 9 ft. 1960 2130 2300||3530|3770|4000|4230 10 ft. 1770 1910 2070 3180 3390 3600 3810 11 ft. 1600 1740|1880||2890|3080 | 3270|3460] 12 ft. 1470 1590 1730 2650 2820 3000 3170 13 ft. 1360 1470 1590| |2450|2610 2770 2930 14 ft. 1260 1370 1480 2270 2420 2570 2720 15 ft. 1180 1280 1380||2120 2260|2400|2540] 16 ft. 1100 1200 1290||1990 2120 2250|2380| 17 ft. 1040 1130 1220|1870 1990 2120 2240 18 ft. 980 1060 1150 1770 1880 2000 2120 19 ft. 930 1010 1090 1670 1780 1890 2000 880 960 1040

5730 6460 7180 5160 5810 6460 4690 5280 5880 4300 4840 5390 3970 4470 4970 3680 4150 4620 3440 3870 4310 3220 3630 4040 3030 3420| 3800 2870 3230 3590 2720 3060 3400

20 ft.

1590 1690 1800 1900

2580 2900 3230

21 ft. 840 910 990|| 1510 1610 1710 1810

2460 2770 3080

Dist.

betw. supp'ts

8 Inch.

7 Inch.

8 Inch. 12/142171 12 1517 2017 201 17}|20| |223 lbs lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs lbs. lbs. 4 ft. 19370 21320|23280| |27600 29850 | 32140 || 37920|40130|42740 5 ft. 15490 17050 18620 22080 23880 2571030330 32100 34190 6 ft. 12910 14210 15520 18400 19900 21430||25280 26750 28500 7 ft. 11070 12180 13300||15770|17060|18370| |21670 22930|24420 8 ft. 9680 10660 11640 13800 14930 16070 | 18960 |20060 21370 9 ft. 8610 9470 10350 12270 13270 14280||16850 17830 19000 10 ft. 7750 8530 9310|11040|11940|12860||15170|16050|17100 11 ft. 7040 7750 8460||10040|10860|11690||13790|14590|15540 12 ft. 6460 7110 7760 9200 9950 10710||12640|13380 14250 13 ft. 5960 6560 7160|| 8490 | 9190 | 9890||11670|12350|13150 14 ft. 5530 6090] 6650|| 7890| 8530 | 9180||10830|11470|12210 15 ft. 5160 5680 6210|| 7360| 7960| 8570||10110 10700|11400 16 ft. 4840 5330 5820 6900 7460] 8030|| 9408|10030 10690 17 ft. 4560 5020] 5480|| 6490] 7020| 7560|| 8920 9440|10060 18 ft. 4300 4740 5170|| 6130 6630 7140|| 8430 8920 9500 19 ft. 4080 4490 4900|| 5810 6280 6770|| 7980 8450 9000 20 ft. 3870 4260 4660|| 5520 5970| 6430|| 7580 8030 8550 21 ft. 3690 4060 4430|| 5260 5690 6120|| 7220 7640 8140 22 ft. 3520 3880 4230|| 50201 54301 5840| 6890 7300 7770 23 ft. 3370 3710 4050|| 4800 5190 5590 6590 6980 7430 24 ft. 32301 3550 3880|| 4600| 4980| 5360| 6320 6690 7120 25 ft. 3100 3410| 3720| 4420 4780 5140|| 6070 6420 6840 26 ft. 2980 3280 3580 4250 4590| 4940|| 5830| 6170 6580 27 ft. 2870 3160 3450|| 4090 4420 4760|| 5620 5940 6330 28 ft. 2770 3050 3330|| 3940 4260 4590|| 5420| 5720| 6110 29 ft. 2670 2940 3210|| 3810 4120| 4480|| 5230| 5530| 5900

(Continued next month)

[blocks in formation]

LABOR'S RIGHTS JUDICIALLY UPHELD.

The recent decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of Grant Construction Company vs. St. Paul Building Trades Council has written into the judicial practice of the state the fundamental injunction principles for which organized labor has contended. Under that decision wageearners of Minnesota enjoy the rights and liberties that would come to them under a law enacted in conformity to the model bill recommended by the American Federation of Labor to regulate and limit the use of the writ of injunction.

This decision is of tremendous interest to the organized labor movement of the country, and ought to be used with effect in sustaining demands for this necessary, fundamental legislation.

The St. Paul Building Trades Council declared the George J. Grant Construction Company unfair to organized labor and urged working men to refuse to work for it or any person or firm holding subcontracts from or under it. The George J. Grant Construction Company obtained in the District Court a temporary restraining order against the Building Trades Council, its officers and unions affiliated with the Council. Following the issuance of the temporary injunction the company applied for an injunction against the defendants pende lite. The application was made before Judge Frederick M. Dickson. Walter G. Merritt, chief attorney for the American Anti-Boycott Association, together with local St. Paul attorneys representing the Minnesota Manufacturers' Association, appeared for the Grant Construction Company and made an exhaustive presentation in favor of the issuance of the injunction. On June 27, 1916, Judge Dickson refused to grant the injunction and dismissed the temporary restraining order. The company then appealed to the Minnesota State Supreme Court from the ruling of Judge Dickson. On February 23, 1917, the Supreme Court rendered its opinion,

Associate Justice Hallam presenting the decision of the court and affirming the ruling of District Judge Dickson.

In rendering the opinion the Minnesota State Supreme Court sustains the contentions iterated and reiterated by the A. F. of L. with reference to the inherent rights of workmen in pursuing their activities in the protection of their interests by normal collective action. Upon the points involved in the case the Minnesota State Supreme Court discusses them as follows:

"On the argument in this court counsel for the plaintiff admitted that no single act done was claimed to be unlawful. His claim was that the entire set of acts taken together and in connection with the purpose with which they were done were unlawful on the theory that they constituted what he termed organized economic oppression. The restraining power of the courts of equity has usually been evoked to enjoin some tangible or specific acts. It is not easy to frame an injunction to restrain organized economic oppression It is not easy to forbid a course of conduct based upon acts lawful when taken alone, on the theory that they are unlawful when taken as a whole. Some courts have held that an act lawful if done by one person may be unlawful if co-operated in by many, but we are not aware that it has ever been held that many lawful acts done by the same person or body of persons can constitute an unlawful whole."

In briefing the established facts brought out in the trial of this case, the Supreme Court summarizes them as follows:

"A labor dispute exists between plaintiff and the defendant unions and their members. Defendants are not employes of plaintiff. The dispute has arisen mainly from the fact that plaintiff runs what is termed an open shop —that is, it employs non-union menand it is claimed plaintiff has at some times dealt unfairly with union men and has in some cases refused them employment. It would seem to be a bona fide dispute on both sides. The unions of building trades and their

[blocks in formation]

In regard to relations between employer and employe, the court goes on to say:

"The determination of the questions here involved is not difficult. Plaintiff may employ whom it pleases. It may maintain an open shop if it pleases. It should not be coerced into doing otherwise. Defendants have the right to work for whom they please. It is best that we give both employer and employe a broad field of action. As said by Judge Cooley, 'It is a part of every man's civil rights that he be left at liberty to refuse business relations with any person whomsoever, whether the refusal rests upon reason or is the result of whim, caprice, prejudice or malice. With his reasons neither the public nor third persons have any legal concern.' (Cooley on Torts, 2nd Ed., P. 328.) 'Defendants may if no contract is involved refuse to work in an open shop. They may agree among themselves not to do so.'

men.

"May the respondents, because plaintiff employs non-union labor in construction of a building, agree not to work for a sub-contractor or part vr the work who does employ only union It seems to us this question was answered by this court in Gray vs. Building Trades Council, 91 Minn., 171. There, as here, the controversy arose out of the effort of the defendant unions to compel the plaintiffs to employ only union labor. Defendant unions notified holders of buildings under construction that if plaintiffs were awarded certain sub-contracts for work on the buildings, all union men employed on the buildings would be called out. The trial court enjoined the defendants from ordering and notifying members of the union to desist from work on the building because of the fact that plaintiffs were employed

« AnteriorContinuar »