are forbidden in buildings in company towns and camps. The plan, like others, calls for "no discrimination" for mere membership in a trade union, but it is one thing to have such a rule, and another thing to enforce it. And, as usual, we may ask: what does individual membership in a union mean unless the union functions in the mine? The answer is: "Nothing!" However, in this instance the real union by fighting and bargaining, does fix the wages in other mines which are taken as a basis for payments in the Rockefeller mines. In other words, the workers under the organized slavery of the company union are parasites enjoying the conditions made possible for them by the struggles and hardships of organized workers in other places! Besides, we find the workers so terrified and crushed by the job-fear that they dare not bring up the grievances to the committees, assuming that the latter might do them any good. (See Employes' Representation in Coal Mines, by Ben M. Selekman and Mary Van Kleeck).
Since the Sage Foundation study was published we have seen the plan used to reduce wages. In March, 1925, a 20 per cent reduction was put over with the aid of the State Industrial Commission. In August, 1925, the company circulated among the men a petition for another reduction of 11 per cent. Sixteen coal diggers in one mine refused to sign on the dotted line. They were promptly discharged. Some mines, where they refused to vote for the cut, were closed down entirely. At still other mines, for example, at Coal Creek, writes Felix Pagliano, Secretary of District 15, United Mine Workers of America, "the men voted solidly against any cut, and were duly informed by the general manager that it did not make any difference to the company; the cut would be made." The same union official reports that "everything is open shop in these Colorado
28
