30,000 locked out : $b the great strike of the building trades in Chicago
John Locke · en
Tuesday, June 7th, the Central Council of the Building Interests met,
and the committee on strikes and grievances, through P. B. Wight, its
chairman, submitted a lengthy report. It defined strikes of two
kinds--general and special. The general strike, which was more frequent,
was a demand by a number of employes, acting in concert, for an increase
in wages, or a change in working rules, or methods of conducting
business, followed by a united refusal to work. A special strike was
concerted refusal to work on a particular job, or for a particular
employer, based on the assumption of a contract between employer and
employe which never existed, and a pretense of a violation of a
contract. A general strike was legitimate, in a business sense. A
special was based on false premises, and was practically an attempt to
regulate an employer's way of doing business by visiting upon him
embarrassment in a temporary stoppage of his business. It was often
settled by the employers paying a "fine" to the offended "union" as a
condition of the men returning to work in a body. This was nothing less
than blackmail, and a receipt of the fine was a criminal act. It was in
the nature of conspiracy. It might be an attempt on the part of the
strikers to obtain some advantage, which might occasion great annoyance
or damage to the employers. Such was the demand of the United Order of
American Bricklayers and Stonemasons on the 29th of April last for a
Saturday pay-day, which was resisted and refused by many employers. The
report then gave a detailed account of the immediate and consequent
results of the strike, with a statement of action taken by all building
organizations to date, showing the manner in which the question affected
all building trades, and resulting in locking out thousands of
well-trained and well-behaved artisans, who obeyed the dictates of the
handful of officials, committeemen, and a small army of walking
delegates, who were to be seen daily at the union headquarters and who
were paid by contributions from men whose dues were really filched from
their wives and children. The report concluded as follows: