THE MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK, November 8, 1910. To the Presidents of the Express Companies Operating in New York: DEAR SIRS.-During my absence from the city yesterday the executive committee of the Merchants' Association of New York, of which I am chairman, addressed a communication to each of you commenting adversely on the position assumed by you in regard to the employment of members of labor unions, as expressed in the public letter of Mayor Gaynor of the day previous. With the position thus stated by our executive committee I am in entire accord. Permit me to point out, however, that there is a middle ground between the two positions presented by the Mayor's letter and the alternative apparently assumed. The former implies your position to be that you reserve the right to refuse to re-employ a man because, since quitting your service, he has joined the union; the latter implies that, because of his having joined the union, you would be compelled to re-employ him even if you had other and adequate reasons for not wishing to again have him in your service. Here is a broad difference, concerning which a confusion of thought apparently exists. 66 There are three conditions of employment as relating to organized labor, viz.: (1) the "closed shop," in which the employer agrees to employ only union labor; (2) the "non-union shop," in which the employer announces that no union labor will be employed; (3) the "open shop," in which the employer makes no discrimination, but employs both union and non-union labor. Even in a closed shop," however, the right is conceded to the employer to refuse employment to persons whose services he does not need, and usually to persons whose character, habits or skill are unsatisfactory to him. If I apprehend your position correctly, it is this latter point for which you contend; that you cannot permit yourselves to an agreement that simply because a former employee, since leaving your service, has joined the union, you shall thereby be compelled to re-employ him regardless of his fitness, and even if, in the interim, he has flagrantly or maliciously sought to do you injury. If this issue is correctly stated I believe that public sentiment will approve the principle it involves. It would seem also that the Mayor's letter did not cover or apply to this proposition. Public sentiment, while not always conclusive, is usually an influential if not a determining factor in the final settlement of controversies of this kind. If the point for which you are contending is the one which I have just stated, especially if this is the only point which prevents you from meeting the men in conference for adjustment of the differences between you, I believe that by making clear this fact you will justify your position and command the approval of public sentiment. If the men are reasonable, it would seem also that they would concede the inherent justice of the argument that an employer should not be compelled to employ an avowed enemy or wrongdoer, and that the way would then be cleared for a speedy settlement of the present difficulties which are so grievously affecting the interests and welfare of this great community. Yours respectfully, HENRY R. TOWNE, President, On the 9th of November, Commissioner of Labor Williams telegraphed to the several companies and to the labor headquarters as follows: My attention has been called to the serious situation in New York City arising out of the strike between the express companies and their employees, which strike, I am informed, can be settled if reason prevails. Certain powers are conferred on the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration by sections 141 and 143 of the State Labor Law, and unless immediate steps are taken to effect an adjustment of the pending dispute I will exercise such powers. The Bureau conferred with officers of the National Civic Federation in regard to the general situation, and later Mediator McManus went to the strike headquarters and requested that the labor leaders defer the threatened general strike of teamsters for forty-eight hours pending action by the Labor Department. The request was granted. On November 10 the companies published a response to Mr. Towne's letter as follows: NEW YORK, November 9, 1910. Henry R. Towne, Esq., President, Merchants' Association of New York, New York City: DEAR SIR.— Your letter of November 8, addressed to the presidents of the various express companies, affords a very welcome opportunity of stating our opposition in reference to the existing troubles, to the end that much prevalent misunderstanding may be dispelled, and that the community and those business interests represented by your association may thoroughly understand the position which the express companies have taken. You correctly say in substance that the former communication sent to us by authority of your executive committee assumed that there were but two extreme alternatives confronting the express companies - one, that they take back into their employment every man belonging to a union, unless guilty of actual violence, independent of any consideration of his worthiness, his loyalty or his fitness for the position; the other that the companies should refuse employment to any man who was a member of the union. This last position is the one which your executive committee imputed to us. Certainly it is not one which the companies have ever occupied nor one which they would feel themselves justified in taking. You, however, have assumed in your letter that neither of these views is taken by the companies, but that their position is this: that they are perfectly willing to conduct their business on the basis of an "open shop," as defined by you, and that they do not intend to discriminate against any employee on the ground that he is a member of a union. With your definition of an open shop we entirely agree, and you have correctly stated the position which the various companies occupy. We insist that we shall have the right to pass upon the qualifications and merits of our employees. We will not discriminate against any man because he is a member of a union. It seems proper that we should add a few words about the general character and qualifications of our so-called drivers, and the apparent origin and reasons for the present disturbance in the business of the express companies. A young man entering our wagon service is carefully investigated as to his character and business qualifications, with the view of promotion. Our wagon force cannot be considered the same as teamsters; neither can they be considered as in the same class with drivers of coal carts, brick, dirt or garbage wagons. Our so-called drivers must be of a class competent to solicit freight, to contract with shippers, to receive and deliver valuable shipments and packages, and to intelligently transact business with the heads of concerns and families. In short, an express wagon is really an express office on wheels, conducted by a man called a driver," but who is, in fact, an express agent, having one or more assistants called helpers. It can thus readily be seen that express employees of this class should not be subservient to a truckmen's union, where they would have to obey strike orders in the event of labor troubles with any of the other classes mentioned above. The present troubles do not owe their origin to any general dissatisfaction on the part of the employees of any of the companies with conditions of service or remuneration. A few boys employed as helpers on the wagons of one of the companies demanded an increased wage. The local agent of the company, upon whom this demand was made, replied that he had no authority to deal with the request, but would submit it to the management. They thereupon retired and immediately proceeded to acts of violence and intimidation, in which they were joined by a mob. Other employees of this company were assaulted, stoned, dragged from their wagons, and many of them seriously injured. Shortly these acts of violence extended to the employees of the other companies, who had made no complaint of the conditions of their employment and formulated or expressed no grievance of any description. This intimidation finally spread from Jersey City, where it originated, to the city of New York, and reached the express companies doing business there, and was carried to the extent of a thorough demoralization and intimidation of their men. The employees of the companies generally desired to continue at work. Large numbers of them have steadily offered to continue their work if properly protected against violence. Threats, however, have been made against them very generally to the effect that they would be subject to violence unless they joined the teamsters' union, and their wives and families have been visited and told that unless the employees joined the union “their bodies would be found floating in the North River." Under these circumstances, the companies have felt that they would not be justified in insisting upon the exposure of their men to the danger of losing their lives. Large numbers of the employees have not left the service, but have reported from time to time and been instructed by the proper officer of their company to remain at home because of the danger to their lives. Large numbers of them have responded to calls from the companies daily and have been assigned to and cheerfully performed duties other than those which belong to their positions. Now what, under these circumstances, is the duty of the companies? They owe, in the first place, a duty to the public; they are engaged in the performance of a public service. They are doing their utmost to perform that service. They are prevented from it solely by violence. They cannot, at the present time, procure requisite police protection because of the existence of an ordinance in the city of New York requiring drivers to be licensed, an ordinance which has not been operative for many years and which has always been regarded as inapplicable to companies engaged in interstate traffic, but which is now appealed to by the leaders of this strike, and the city authorities decline to give police protection to wagons the drivers of which have not been able to procure such licenses. In the next place, the companies feel that they owe a duty to their own employees, that they should not themselves countenance the driving of their faithful employees by violence and intimidation into the ranks of a union which they have not heretofore chosen voluntarily to join, a union the membership of which has no interest in common with those of the employees of the express companies. They represent an entirely different class of labor, their lives are passed under entirely different conditions. In the next place, the companies owe a duty to themselves and the business which they conduct. To allow it to be unionized by force by the Teamsters' Union would subject the business to the tyranny of a union which would have it in its power to paralyze this important industry of the country through sympathetic strikes called, if you please, upon the occasion of a cabman's dispute with his employer, or a truckman's difference about wages; or, as in the case of the late Chicago strike, upon a boycott declared upon a garment worker's strike. Each of the companies is standing for an open shop," the right to employ men, union or non-union, with respect solely to their fitness. We believe you are entirely right in assuming that any company taking that stand will receive the cordial approbation and support of the public, and we believe that no one will more readily concede the justice and necessity of the position taken than commercial bodies such as the one which you represent. We beg to say that the terms upon which each company is willing to take back its employees are as follows: It will take back its employees into the service without discrimination upon the ground of whether or not they have joined a union. It will not take back those men, whether they be members of a union or not, who have committed or who have incited acts of violence and hostility against the company. It will insist upon its right, in selecting its employees, to be the sole judge of the fitness of men to be employed, having in view the responsible duties which those men have to perform. In conclusion, we beg to say that the companies believe that if they can be afforded the proper police protection to which every lawful business is entitled they will be able to carry on their business to the satisfaction of the public. Yours very truly, ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY, By W. M. Barrett, President. By H. S. Julier, Vice-President. By T. N. Smith, General Manager. By Frank H. Platt, Director. By E. A. Stedman, Vice-President. When Mayor Gaynor read this response he saw at once that it meant that the companies consented to offer practically what had been proposed by the Bureau on November 1, which the representatives of the strikers had assured the Mayor would be acceptable to them. He requested Mr. Towne to reduce the letter to such a short form as had before been proposed and see if the companies would not sign it. He did so and they all signed. This proposal is as follows: Henry R. Towne, Esq., President Merchants' Association of New York, New York City: DEAR SIR. We are willing to take back our employees who are on strike, whether or not they have joined a union, reserving the right, however, to decline to take back any of them, whether they be members of a union or not, who may have committed or incited acts of violence and hostility against us. Those of our companies whose employees have raised a question concerning their hours of employment or rate of wages will agree, after the men resume work, at once to take up these questions with their employees, or with committees of them, for the purpose of reaching a settlement which shall be just and satisfactory to both parties, with the understanding that the former hours and rates of wages shall continue in effect until December 1, next, and that on that date any changes mutually agreed upon shall then become effective. Yours very truly, ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY, H. S. Julier, Vice-President. I. N. Smart, General Manager. Frank H. Platt, Director. WELLS, FARGO & COMPANY, E. A. Stedman, Vice-President. |