A History of Trade Unionism in the United StatesPerlman, Selig
History
A History of Trade Unionism in the United States
Perlman, Selig
Labor unions -- United States -- History
In 1908 the situation of 1906 was repeated. This time the Illinois
operators refused to attend the Interstate conference on the ground that
the Interstate agreement severely handicapped Illinois. As said before,
ever since 1897 payment in Illinois has been upon the run-of-mine basis;
whereas in all other States of the central competitive field the miners
were paid for screened coal only. With the operators of each State
having one vote in the joint conference, it can be understood why the
handicap against Illinois continued. Theoretically, of course, the
Illinois operators might have voted against the acceptance of any
agreement which gave an advantage to other States; however, against this
weighed the fact that the union was strongest in Illinois. The Illinois
operators, hence, preferred to deal separately with the United Mine
Workers. Accordingly, an Interstate agreement was drawn up, applying
only to Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
In 1910, the Illinois operators again refused to enter the Interstate
conference, but this time the United Mine Workers insisted upon a return
to the Interstate agreement system of 1898. On April 1, 1910, operations
were suspended throughout the central competitive field. By July
agreements had been secured in every State save Illinois, the latter
State holding out until September. This long struggle in Illinois was
the first real test of strength between the operators and the miners
since 1897. The miners' victory made it inevitable that the Illinois
operators should eventually reenter the Interstate conference.
In 1912, after repeated conferences, the net result was the restoration
of the Interstate agreement as it existed before 1906. The special
burden of which the Illinois operators had been complaining was not
removed; yet they were compelled by the union to remain a party to the
Interstate agreement. The union justified its special treatment of the
operators in Illinois on the ground that the run-of-mine rates were 40
percent below the screened coal rates, thus compensating them amply for
the "slack" for which they had to pay under this system. The Federal
report on "Restriction of Output" of 1904 substantiated the union's
contention. Ultimately, the United Mine Workers unquestionably hoped to
establish the run-of-mine system throughout the central competitive
field.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account