COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 145 



tempted to dictate prices, which were to be determined 

 by a rather unique method. Blanks were sent to producers, 

 who thereon estimated prices wanted and amount of milk 

 to be shipped. These prices were then averaged on the 

 basis of number of cans to be shipped.' The union at that 

 time had the machinery for a strike, but a strike had not 

 so far been necessary, although several threats had been 

 made.^ 



In the fall of 1903 the Milk Producers' Union was said 

 to control five-sixths of the entire milk supply within one 

 hundred miles of Boston.' About this time argument 

 over the surplus question became very bitter, and the 

 producers repeatedly threatened to strike if their demands 

 were not met.* The milk dealers were willing to arbitrate 

 on the question of price, but not on the question of sur- 

 plus. According to the surplus clause of the contract 

 which the producers were asked to sign, the dealers bought 

 the producers' milk in an unlimited quantity and used the 

 surplus for the manufacture of butter. The farmers then 

 received butter prices for such surplus. The difficulty 

 was that the farmer never knew for what part of his prod- 

 uct he was to receive the milk price, and for what part 

 the butter price.^ A further clause in the contract be- 

 tween the producers and the milk dealers read: "If any 

 producer produces in any one month less than one-half 

 the quantity that he delivers in the largest preceding 

 month, that difference between one-half and the amount 

 delivered shall be figured per can at the difference be- 

 tween the card price and the butter value of the milk, and 



' Rept. of U. S. Industrial Commission, Vol. VI, p. 407. 



2 Ibid. 



' New York Produce Review 13 American Creamery, Oct. 7, 1903 . 



* Ibid., Nov. 18, 1903. 



» Ibid., May 29, 1901. 



