Street Railway Strike (Part 6) - 1892

When the men who had gone on wildcat strike were informed of the results of the meeting between Alderman Stewart, Rev. Dr. Burns and HSR President Charlton, the men decided to stand together and not return to work unless all five of the discharged employees were reinstated.

The men took the position that the company was not justified in dismissing any employee without stating the reasons why they were being dismissed:

“Mr. Griffith was questioned about this.

“He said : ‘It is a great mistake to suppose that these five men were dismissed because they came to us as a deputation. That was not the reason. Before they came to us, it had been determined to dismiss for we were acting upon information already in our possession. These men were considered to be chiefly responsible for the whole trouble, and we had decided not to keep them any longer in our service.

“ ‘As for the claim that we should always state the reasons why we dismiss men,’ continued Mr. Griffith, ‘all I can say is that we make it a rule not to give reasons. We do so for the sake of the men themselves. Sometimes we dismiss men for stealing, sometimes for drunkenness, sometimes for bad conduct; if we make these reasons public, the discharged men would perhaps be unable to get work elsewhere.’

“Mr. Griffith was asked whether the company could not be persuaded to take back the five discharged men and thereby settle the whole trouble.

“ ‘No,’ replied Mr. Griffith, ‘it would be unwise in the extreme to take back these men now, after what has occurred. If we took them back, it would be generally hailed as a victory for labor organization; it would probably encourage our employees to continue their work of organization in secret, and it would be the beginning of a long series of troubles. We cannot take these men back, especially since the twenty men who left their cars have demanded the reinstatement of their representatives as a condition of going back to work themselves.’ ”¹

^1“The Street Car Difficulty : A Satisfactory Settlement Arranged For” Hamilton Spectator. September 9, 1892.

In the evening, the company once again pulled its trolleys off the streets, stating that they had reason to believe that both the travelling public as well as their vehicles were in danger because of the difficulties with their employees.

The company did not fear sabotage from their employees, but from those who sympathized with their position. Reports of heavy railway ties being placed across the street car tracks in the north end of the city had served to confirm the company’s fears.

J. M. Lottridge, one of the street railway company’s directors, had been out of the city during the difficulties. On his return, he immediately began acting as a liaison between the men, the city officials and the street railway company.

After the mayor and Mr. Lottridge suggested to President Charlton that the five discharged men had not been fairly treated, it was proposed that if the men could not be reinstated, they should receive a month’s wages in order to provide them time to secure other positions without undue hardship.

President Charlton agreed to consider the proposal and bring it before the company’s directors.

The mayor and Mr. Lottridge then reported the results of their conference with President Charlton to a meeting of the street railway employees at the Foresters’ Hall :

“They found the men in a reasonable frame of mind and disposed to meet any reasonable proposition made by the company. A few hotheads were present who talked in a somewhat revolutionary strain; but their outpourings were not coincided with by the others.”²

² “Strikers May Go Back : The Street Car Troubles Nearing an End Now” Hamilton Herald .September 9, 1892.

After meeting with the company’s directors, President Charlton prepared a typewritten communication, addressed to Mayor Blaicher. In it, the company agreed to pay a month’s salary to the five discharged employees and to take back all those who went on strike in sympathy with those who had been discharged.

Mayor Blaicher read the company’s letter to those gathered at the Foresters’ Hall:

“He (the mayor) said he was not present to set labor against capital, but simply to counsel them. He would favor them accepting it.”³

³ “The Strike is Ended : Street Railway Employees Back at Their Posts”

Hamilton Herald. September 10, 1892.

Alderman Eli Van Allen was also present in the Foresters’ Hall to address the men:

“He thought the company had been a little hard, but it would perhaps have been better if the men had been more cautious and had pursued another course to obtain what they consider right from the company. That, however, was past, and it was now the proper thing to consider what could be done”³

After a few more speeches, the men discussed the company’s offer and decided to accept it.

During the evening, the men who had gone out on strike went to the company’s office to meet with Manager Griffith. Some met with the manager individually, others met with him in small groups.

The majority of the men were immediately reinstated, while some were put on a waiting list as the company refused to let go any of the men who had been hired to replace the striking workers. Those not immediately reinstated were told that more men would soon be hired and that their wait would not be long.

As had been the case throughout the difficulties, the Hamilton daily newspapers had different interpretations on the significance of the problems between the street railway employees and the company .

The Hamilton Times felt that the street railway company was arbitrary in prohibiting any association among its employees and felt that, since the street railway employees were not skilled workers, their position was weak.:

“The only way in which the street car employees can be placed in a position of comparative independence is by the general elevation of labor. When there are more jobs, then men, then the latter will dare call their souls their own”⁴

⁴ “At a Disadvantage” Hamilton Times. September 10, 1892

The Hamilton Herald generally supported the worker and stated that their actions had been justifiable:

“Strikes are unpleasant and annoying things no matter from what point of view they are considered. They invariably work both ways, injuring both employers and employed, and provoking bitterness and hard feeling. But there are times when it seems almost impossible to avoid them.

“One thing was brought out clearly by the event and that was that public opinion would compel the company to look upon the men as something more than mere machines to be worked without any regard for the limitations of the powers of endurance.”⁵

⁵ “The Street Car Strike.” Hamilton Herald September 10, 1892.