« ПретходнаНастави »
disadvantages for employers and employees who do not elect to make such contracts, just as some Workmen's Compensation Laws, while voluntary in theory, drove the employer to accept their terms by depriving him of such defenses as contributory negligence and the fellow-servant doctrine, if he did not consent. The voluntary adoption of protective contracts on public utilities could be induced by similar methods.
THE LITERACY TEST
Last week, by a vote of 62 to 19, the United States Senate repassed the Immigration Bill, containing the literacy test, thus enacting it into law despite the President's veto. The House had repassed the bill over the veto the week before by a vote of 287 to 106. This is the first time that a veto by the present President has been overridden.
Twenty years ago President Cleveland vetoed a similar measure. President Taft also vetoed one, and President Wilson has done so twice. The first time when Mr. Wilson refused his signature the Senate repassed the bill with a sufficient majority to override the veto, but the measure failed of the necessary two-thirds vote in the House. Now in both houses it has won beyond the two-thirds. The law will go into effect on May 1, 1917. The literacy test, as provided, excludes from the United States all aliens over sixteen years old who cannot read English or some other language. Any admissible alien, however, or any American citizen, may bring in his wife, daughter, mother, grandmother, and also father and grandfather if they are over fifty-five years of age, regardless of whether such relative can read. Hence the literacy test applies only to the actual laborer under fifty-five years of age. The effectual reason for the literacy test is that the labor unions desire to limit the labor supply. After a twenty years' fight Congress has finally obeyed them and defied the President's statement in his veto message that the literacy clause constitutes a test not of character but of opportunity, and is therefore unjust in principle. In this capitulation the National Legislature, we believe, does not represent the country's majority sentiment.—The Outlook.
LABOR VS. THE UNION The Threat of Strike Against the A. F. of L. Washington, Jan. 27.—The interesting spectacle is presented of Samuel Gompers, Frank Morrison and the other officers of the American Federation of Labor having demands made upon them by their employees in the American Federation of Labor Building, in Washington, for wages enough to enable these employees to live in moderate comfort. It is not the desire of Mr. Gompers or his associates that this cat should be let out of the bag, but they forgot that their own workers were members of unions, and that under the terms of these unions they were entitled to some consideration in the matter of pay, service and conditions of work. Mr. Gompers has been an earnest and voluble advocate of a bill before Congress prescribing a minimum wage of $3 a day for all Government employees. In connection with his approval of this measure he has found opportunity to vent his denunciation of employers generally, and other labor leaders have pointed out how both the Government and the employer grind the face of the poor, refuse decent wages and compel them to live in a manner incompatible with the dignity of an American citizen. While all these fulminations were streaming forth there were workers in the American Federation of Labor Building drawing $10, $12, and $14 a week, and some even less than $10.
If a manufacturer whose employees made demands on him alleged that it was impossible for him to meet these demands because his profits were small and his production cost high, he would receive scant consideration from the union, who would immediately declare a strike. If he offered to show his books he would be told that what his books showed had nothing to do with the case, and that he was to meet the demands of his workers or they would strike. In the case of the employees of the American Federation of Labor there is no necessity of showing the books, because the books are wide open, and there is no necessity of emphasizing the fact that there is a handsome surplus in the bank; that the receipts each year are enormous; that certain persons, expend large sums, and that certain officers are very substantially paid. Therefore, Samuel Gompers could not allege, in defense of any refusal to meet the demands of his employees, that the Federation could not stand it. For example, the report for the month of November, 1916, shows that there was a cash balance on hand on November 30, 1916, of $90,780.43.
Anyone that is interested and will look over the list expenses itemized in the financial statement of the Federation as published in the American Federationist will find that on Nov. 2, A. E. Holder received $60 for “legislation expenses”; that C. Wyatt received $57 for the same purpose on Nov. 6; J. P. Egan $95.23 on Nov,7; J. P. Egan again $62.95 on Nov. 9; A. E. Holder $67 on Nov. 10; G. Hamilton $61.50 on Nov. 20; A. E. Holder $67 on Nov. 21; J. P. Egan $53.50 on Nov. 25; Grant Hamilton $57 on Nov. 25; A. E. Holder $62 on Nov. 27. These are all listed as having been “legislative expenses.” The public does not exactly understand what "legislative expenses” mean, but evidently the work of these gentlemen is more remunerative than that of a stenographer who receives $10 or $12 a week.
In the report of the proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual convention of the American Federation of Labor, held at Baltimore on Nov. 13 last, it is shown that during the year there was paid to seventy-one “organizers” the sum of $80,983.11. That is an interesting item in itself. The treasurer's statement shows that from Oct. 31 to Sept. 30 the American Federation of Labor received $334,275.41 and expended $315,047.32 These heavy expenses were not due to remuneration of employees of the Federation and were not incurred in carrying out the great purpose of paying a living wage to employees. Almost at the end of the itemized expenses of November, 1916, there are found two modest items, one stating that $625 was paid to Samuel Gompers for one month's salary, and the other that $416.67 was paid to Frank Morrison for one month's salary. Samuel therefore received a little more than $20 a day for services and Mr. Morrison received almost $14 a day. There, at least, the spirit of the American Federation of Labor was manifest, because it was seen to, that these gentlemen were provided with funds that would permit them to live properly. They were also provided with good working conditions, and other emoluments.
In the itemized expenses of November, in the week of Nov. 24, there may be found items of workers receiving $16 a week, $17 a week, $15 a week, $13 a week, $12 a week, $11 a week, $10 a week, and so on. In fact there are several receiving only $10 a week, and apparently the highest salary paid to any of the employees was about $35 a week. This of course averages $5 a day, and somewhat remotely approximates the necessary living expenses of the president of the organization. It was necessary for the workers of the Federation to present practically an ultimatum to the dictators of the American Federation of Labor before they could secure a hearing or secure any improvement in their wages.
They were, as a matter of fact, seeking only a $3 a day minimum wage, which had been so ardently advocated for even those doing inconsequential work for the Government in Washington. They also demanded a seven-hour day, with a half-holiday on Saturday, but the Federation tried to compromise by offering a seven and one-half hour day, although that had been enjoyed by the clerks for years. There was also a demand for a change in the manner of adjusting differences between employers and employees, and according to the secretary of the union the Federation refused all of these demands. It was intimated that unless the Federation introduced the same element of humanity and charity into the affairs of the Federation which it demanded in the affairs of private employers, the Federation would have a strike on its hands, and would find out how efficient and effective a strike would be to demoralize the working affairs of the Federation. The union wanted arbitrators of disputes arising between employers and employees, to consist of one clerk, one labor official and a third party selected by these two. The Federation stipulated that the arbitration council be composed entirely of trade unionists. In other words, the Federation wanted to be the defendant and also the judge and jury in the matter at issue.-Boston Transcript.
WHAT FIRST-AIDERS SHOULD DO*
Instructions for First-Aid Treatment of Common Injuries
Open Wounds-Abrasions, Cuts, Punctures Drop 3% Alcoholic Iodine into wound freely, then apply dry sterile gauze to wound and bandage it. If necessary to cleanse greasy substances from wound, flush it with gasoline. Do not otherwise cleanse wound.
Severe Bleeding Place patient at rest and elevate injured part. Apply sterile gauze pad large enough to allow pressure upon, above, and below wound. Bandage tightly. If severe bleeding continues apply tourniquet between wound and heart and secure physician's services at once. Use tourniquet with caution and only after other means have failed to stop bleeding.
Nose Bleeding Maintain patient in upright position with arms elevated. Have him breathe gently through mouth and not blow nose. If bleeding continues freely, press finger firmly on patient's upper lip close to nose or have him snuff diluted White Wine Vinegar into nose.
Bruises, Sprains Cover injury with several layers of sterile gauze or cotton, then bandage tightly. Application of heat or cold may help; other means are unnecessary. If injury is severe place patient at rest and elevate injured part until physician's services are secured.
Eye Injuries-Except Eye Burns For ordinary eye irritations flood eye with 4% Boric Acid Solution. Remove only loose particles which can be brushed off gently with absorbent cotton wrapped around end of toothpick or match and dipped in Boric Acid solution.
*“Spirit of Caution,” October-November, 1916.