Military Band vs. Union Labor
The federal government is accused of strike-breaking by allowing Army musicians to perform at a Seattle dance academy that refused to hire union members.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Assistant Secretary of War Oliver has made a recent ruling very obnoxious to the American Federation of Musicians. A certain dancing academy in Seattle which refused to hire union musicians asked for and obtained the services of two players from the U.S. army stationed at Fort Lawton. The matter was taken up by the Musicians' Union and reached the Assistant Secretary of War. It might be stated that the War Department does not recognize the union and musicians employed in regular army bands are subject strictly to army rules and regulations. It had been understood, however, that musicians enlisted in the U.S. army should not compete against civilian musicians for any outside functions or entertainments for less than the union scale or against union regulations. In this case, Secretary Oliver ruled that the army musicians were not competing against civilians because the dancing academy asked for their services and would not hire union men. We fail to see much justice in this decision. It amounts to this: that the military forces are to be used with full consent of the government to break the union. It is worse than an open shop proposition; if all places of amusements refused to hire union musicians and the government allowed musicians from the regular army to step in, the union would be speedily put out of business.
“It would be no worse for the government to furnish strike breakers from the regular army in case of a strike.”
This 1909 dispute highlights the perennial tension between organized labor and state-sanctioned interference. The argument that government resources were being used as a wedge against collective bargaining mirrors contemporary debates over the role of government agencies in private labor disputes.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.