This page is referenced by:

• 1 2016-04-21T11:16:55-07:00 Affecting State or National Policy 5 plain 2016-05-20T15:42:22-07:00 In addition to writing pieces meant to be seen by their membership, the UMWA wrote bulletins and fliers meant to be seen by the public and by government officials. These documents were meant to change the decisions made by policymakers or at least let them hear about the displeasure of a large group of people about a recent decision. One such document was written in regards to the Secretary of State refusing to allow Shapurji Saklatvala from entering the country. Saklatvala was a member of the British parliament that was born in India, and he was dedicated to the betterment of conditions for laborers, similar to American unions. Upon him being refused entry to America, the UMWA created the flier pictured below that details their outrage at the Secretary of State's refusal to allow someone they considered a brother in ideology to enter the country. District 14 is communicating directly with the leadership of the country to ensure that the democratic ideals of the union and the country as a whole will be upheld. It is this type of communication that allowed the union to be such a strong force in America. The unions were not afraid to speak up for themselves, and in addition to their power of collective bargaining with employers, they had the power to communicate clearly and professionally about their grievances with the government, sometimes allowing them government intervention in their favor.
  This document also highlights a governmental situation that the UMWA had a hand in bringing down. The statement of protest mentions that the men and women of district fourteen "struck, marched and went to jail against the outrageous Industrial Court Law." This is explained in Shulenburger and Johnson's history of labor unions in Kansas (14). A nationwide strike in 1919 prompted the Kansas legislature to create a committee that would dictate wages, hours, and working conditions in 1920; however, it also made strikes and boycotts illegal. Of course, the UMWA did not support this idea. This was the purpose that they were created for, but they could not trust this industrial court to have their best interests in mind. As a result, the UMWA fought against this, and in 1923, the Supreme Court declared the Industrial Court unconstitutional.
  
  A third situation that shows the UMWA fighting for policy reform is displayed in the newspaper clipping below. This clipping was written from someone on the other side of the issue from most of the documents contained in this Scalar book, because most of the documents were directly written by UMWA leadership or members. The article is written about the debate of bringing more troops into the minefields to keep order during a dispute between the unions and non-union workers over what pay scale they wanted to be paid under. Many of the non-union workers were accepting payment under the 1917 payment scale, because they claimed it was more money per time, but the union workers wanted to use the 1924 scale because they claimed it provided year-round stable work, even if it was at a lower hourly rate. The union leaders walked out on a discussion where they expected to hear a decision form the governor on the issue of debate, and the scene quickly turned to discussion of bringing in more troops because of threats of violence. The authors claim that multiple witnesses described the mine workers as violent, claiming that they threatened to harm non-union workers if they broke the union's strike, describing non-union workers preparing against the threat of lynching by bringing food in case they needed to hide from union members in the mine, and the author of the article provided one report of a beating carried out on a non-union worker by ten or more union members. This final report had at least three convictions of the men involved who were fined.
  
  
  While this final document does not depict unions to be the truest exemplars of American justice and decency, the UMWA as an organization fought for its members rights and wellbeing. Although there is another side to the story and this newspaper article is only one story out of what may be hundreds or thousands of similar stories where the unions are stretching the limits of what is justifiable, the UMWA had democratic goals in mind for the betterment of not only their membership but all laborers throughout the country and the entire world, as evidenced by their support of a British parliament member who fought for laborers' rights in India. The union had real and noticeable effects on the policy of the government that ensured that they, their children, and all future generations would have fair working conditions and would have the legal right to continue fighting for the upholding and betterment of those conditions.